1921-03-09

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 18 (from the Senate) to Amend the Criminal Code so as to provide for the revision of excessive or inadequate punishments.-Mr. Tweedie.

[Stage Direction]
(Questjons answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. DUFF:: 1.	What are the names of the steamers^ of
the Canadian Government Merchant Marine which entered at the port of Montreal since May 1918 ?	[DOT]
2.	What are the names of the steamers of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine on which work was performed by the Hall Engineering Co., of Montreal?
3.	What is the total amount paid to the Hall Engineering Company for work on said steamers?
4.	Was said work performed after tenders were asked for and contracts granted or was said firm allowed to charge their own rates?
5.	What other engineering firms if any, made repairs and performed work on said steamers of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine and what amounts were paid each such firm?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	From Customs reports, the following Canadian Government Merchant Marine
steamers entered at Montreal since May 1918:	Canadian	Adventurer, Canadian
Aviator, Canadian Beaver, Canadian Carrier, Canadian Conqueror, Canadian Farmer, Canadian Gunner, -Canadian Miller, Canadian Miner, Canadian Navigator, Canadian Observer, Canadian Otter, Canadian Pioneer, Canadian Planter, Canadian Raider, Canadian Rancher, Canadian Ranger, Canadian Recruit, Canadian Rover, Canadian Runner, Canadian Sailor, Canadian Sealer, Canadian Seigneur, Canadian Settler, Canadian Signaller, Canadian Sower, Canadian Spinner, Canadian Squatter, Canadian Trader, Canadian Trapper, Canadian Trooper, Canadian Victor, Canadian Volunteer, Canadian Voyageur, Canadian Warrior, Thos. J. Drummond, J. A. McKee.
2.	Information in so far as work performed on Government steamers, no reports are filed at Ottawa as these are matters in connection with operation and under the Board of Management of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine who are responsible for all matters in connection with operation.
3.	See answer to No. 2.
4.	See answer to No. 2.
5.	See answer to No. 2.


EXPENDITURE FOR OIL DISCOVERT
Mr. MACKIE (Edmonton) :: What amount of money has been expended by the Dominion Government in discovery of oil: (a) In the Northwest Territories, (b) In the Province of Alberta.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister):: As far as the Department of the Interior is concerned, nil.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-ST. AUGUSTIN STATION
Mr. PARENT:: 1.	Is the Government aware that no agent is in charge of the so-called Transcontinental station in the Parish of St. Augustin, in the County of Portneuf, and that the Government Railways are consequently losing an annual income of at least ?15,000?
2.	If so, why is not an agent appointed?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	The Canadian National Railways are operated by a Board of Management who appoint agents at stations approved of by Board of Railway Commissioners. No information as to any such loss of income.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


CENSUS COMMISSIONERS AND ENUMERATORS
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Did the Government authorize the Dominion Statistician to consult members of the House of Commons as to the mapping out of enumeration districts for census taking in their respective districts?
2i Does the Government propose to follow this action, if such action was authorized, by consulting members as to the persons to be appointed as commissioners and enumerators for the taking of the census in their respective districts?


Right Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The Government will consider recommendations from members as to the officers in question.


Mr. PREVOST:: 1.	Has the Government appointed a census commissioner for the Province of Quebec in connection with the census to be held in the current year?
2.	If so, who is he and what is his salary?
3.	Has a census director been selected and appointed for every County in the Province of Quebec?
4.	When is the actual census work to begin?
5.	What salaries will be paid to enumerators and their chief in each County?


Right Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Appointments have been made in nearly all the electoral disivisions.
4.	The enumeration will begin on June 1, 1921.
5.	No salaries will be paid; census work will be performed on a piece basis.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS- LOCOMOTIVES
[Stage Direction]
*M. DUFF:
1.	How many locomotives have been built for the Government Railways by the Montreal Locomotive Company since 1917, and how many are under contract, or in course of construction by the said company, but not yet completed?
2.	What has been or will be the total cost of all the said locomotives?
3.	Were public tenders called for the building of the said locomotives? If not, why not?
4.	Is the honourable the Minister of Marine and Fisheries a member of any board or committee connected with the Montreal Locomotive Company? If so, what are the duties or functions of such board or committee in relation to business done with the Government?
5.	If not when did the honourable the Minister of Marine and Fisheries cease to be a Tiember of such board or committee?
Hon. Mr. REID:: 1,	2, 3, 4, 5. The management of Canadian National Railways advise 227 loco-

motives have been ordered since 1917 at a cost of $13,293,000. None under contract at present. Public tenders were called and contract awarded to lowest tenderer. Neither the management nor Government have any information as to who are directors or shareholders or parties interested in Montreal Locomotive Company. Their interest is to see that the lowest tender receives the contract tor supplies for Canadian National Railways.
Information from the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries is that he is a director of said company, but not on any committee.


QUEBEC AND SAGUENAY STATION AGENTS
[Stage Direction]
M. CASGRAIN:
1.	Is the Government aware that on the Quebec and Saguenay line there is no agent in charge at either St. IrenSe, Les Eboulements or at Petite Riviere St. Francois and that owing to this deficiency the National Railways lost considerable revenue?
2.	Why were the agents taken away from these stations?
3.	Has the Government the intention of reinstalling them? If so, when?
Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	The Canadian National Railways are operated by a Board of Management who appoint agents at stations approved of by the Board of Railway Commissioners. No information as to any such loss of income.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.


BAIE ST. PAUL-LIQUOR SEIZURE
[Stage Direction]
M. CASGRAIN:	'
1.	Is the Government aware that a seizure of liquor was made at the station of Baie St. Paul on the line of the Quebec and Saguenay Railway in the month of January last?
2.	What is the name of the constable of the Canadian National Railway who was sent to hold an investigation in reference to the said seizure ?
3.	Has a report been made by the said officer?
4.	If so, will the Government produce same?
Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
'3. Answered by No. 1.
4.	Answered by No. 1.


DUTY ON GERMAN IMPORTATIONS
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Are German goods subjected to the same Customs regulations as other European goods coming into Canada?
2.	If not, in what way is the duty upon them
determined?


Hon. Mr. WIGMORE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


COL. JOHN A. COOPER
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	What publicity services did CoL John A. Cooper render for Canada while in New York
City?
2.	What was his salary?
3.	What were the operating expenses of his office?
4.	Has he resigned? If so, for what reason?
5.	Is Col. Cooper to be absorbed by any Government Department?


Right Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	The Canadian Bureau of information in New York was established in 1919 for the specific purpose of securing greater publicity concerning Canada in the press of the United States. It was placed in charge of Col. John A. Cooper, who succeeded in effecting greatly improved arrangements with the various telegraphic news agencies for the regular and systematic dissemination through the press of information regarding Canadian affairs.
2.	$5,000.
3.	17 July, 1919, to 31 March, 1920, $14,-
428.12; 1 April, 1920, to 28 February, 1921, $24,009.04.	.
4.	Col. Cooper has intimated his intention to resign in order to attend to his private affairs.
5.	No.
PERMANENT POSITIONS FOR RETURNED MEN	,


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: Has the Post Office Department taken advantage of the Civil Service Act passed on November 10th, 1919, as lit applies to making returned men permanent who have given six months' satisfactory service? If not, why?


Right Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: I would like to call the attention of the hon. gentleman to the fact that he must be mistaken in speaking of an Act passed on November 10th, 1919. There is not any such Act; the House was not sitting at that time. It has been suggested to me that the hon. gentleman's question may have reference to an Act which was passed in September of that year. If that is the Act to which he refers and the question is corrected accordingly, I would be glad to give the answer.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I will direct the attention of the hon. member to the question and have him revise it.


REPORT OF DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS
Mr. VIEN:: When does the Government intend to lay before the House the annual report of the Department of Railways and Canals, and the statistics relating to the Canadian National lines?


John Dowsley Reid: I may say to the hon. member that I am laying on the Table to-day the annual report of the Department of Railways and Canals, and that the statistics relating to the Canadian National Railway lines will be brought down as soon as they are received.


GRAND TRUNK AND GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC CONTROL
Mr. VIEN:: 1.	Who has the control of the Grand Trunk
and the Grand Trunk Pacific at the present time?	[DOT]
2.	In what way is this control exercised?
3.	In what manner is the Board of Management elected?
4.	What are the names of those belonging to it at the present time?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	The control of the Grand Trunk Railway System is provided for under the provisions of Chapter 17 of 1919. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company is in Receivership, the Minister of Railways and Canals being Receiver.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	Two members of the Committee of management, Messrs. C. A. Hayes and
S.	J. Hungerford, were appointed by the Government as representing the Canadian National Railways; two others, Messrs. Frank Scott and W. D. Robb, were appointed by the Grand Trunk Railway. These selected the fifth member, Mr. Howard G. Kelley.
4.	See answer to No. 3.


UNITED STATES DISCRIMINATORY TONNAGE DUES
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough) :: 1.	Has any notice been received by the Dominion Government from the Government of the United States indicating an intention to abrogate an existing treaty restricting the right of the United States to impose discriminatory tonnage dues on Canadian vessels?
2.	If so, what action has been taken in the matter ?


Arthur Meighen: This enquiry, no doubt, has reference to the Merchant Marine Act of the United States, approved 5th June, 1920, which authorizes the President to denounce such commercial treaties as restrict the right

of the United States to impose discriminatory tonnage dues on foreign shipping. This the President ''refused to do.
1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


CHICOUTIMI CUSTOMS OFFICE
Mr. SAVARD:: 1.	How much has been collected at the Customs Office at Chicoutimi for the years 1918, 1919, 1920 respectively?
2.	How many employees are there at the said office and what are their respective salaries?
3.	Is this office directly responsible to Ottawa?


Hon. Mr. WIGMORE:: 1.	1917-18, $103,087.61; 1918-19, $102,534.51; 1919-20, $116,458.56.
2.	Two. Alexander Blair, Sub-Collector $1,680; Jos. E. Demers, Customs Examining Officer $1,140.
3.	No. Chicoutimi is under the survey of the Port of Quebec.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

Mr. PROULX:: 1.	How many Soldiers' Hospitals are there in Canada at present?
2.	What is the number of patients in each hospital?
3.	What staff does each hospital carry?
4.	What is the total expenditure on these military hospitals?
5.	Have any of the said hospitals been closed recently?
6.	IVhat is the number of soldier patients who have been transferred from military to general or civic hospitals throughout the country?
7.	What staff is maintained at Ottawa for the inspection and general direction of these military hospitals?
8.	What are the names and respective salaries of the members of said staff?
9.	Have any efforts been made to save money by having soldier patients attended by local doctors ?


Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: 1.	How much was expended in construction of vessels by the Canadian Government Mercantile Marine up to December 31st, 1920?
2.	How much was expended in repairs to said vessels up to the said time?
3.	What was the total expenditure for all purposes to December 31st, 1920?
4.	What were the gross receipts from operation to December 31st, 1920?
5.	What were the net receipts from operation to December 31st, 1920?


Herbert John Mackie: For a copy of all letters, papers and other documents leading up to the passing of the Order in Council, dated the 6th day of September, 1919 (P. C. 1860), whereby authority was

given (a) For the withdrawal from disposal, under the provisions of the Quartz Mining Regulations, of the available Sodium Chlorid (common salt) Rights in Township 88, Ranges 7 and 8, and Township 89, Ranges 8 and 9, west of the 4th, to admit of prospecting operations for the discovery of that mineral being conducted in the interests of the province of Alberta.
(b) For the withdrawal from disposal of the Gypsum Mining Rights under the said property.



TRANSLATION OF FRENCH SPEECHES

Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Cham-bly and Vercheres) moved:: Considering that the French language is official in the House of Commons.
Considering that a great number of speeches are delivered in French;
Considering that it is important that the members should be acquainted with all that is said in Parliament;
Considering that the majority of the English members do not understand French;
Considering that speeches delivered in French do not appear in English in Hansard, unless in the revised edition six or seven months hence, whilst the English speeches are translated in French the next day in Hansard ;
Therefore this House is of the opinion that the speeches delivered in French should be immediately translated and published; that the Government should at once instruct the translators and the King's Printer to publish every Monday, during the session, a special sheet of Hansard containing the translation into English of all the speeches which have been delivered in French the preceding week.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the resolution standing in my name is non-partisan and will, I am sure, appeal to all hon. members. A similar resolution was introduced by me on the 24th March last year with the same object in, view, but probably not in as definite form in regard to the means to accomplish it. I am confident, Sir, that it would be unfair to state that some hon. members do not desire to know all that is said in the House. Nevertheless I am sorry to say that at least two-thirds of hon. members do not understand the French language, and therefore if the translation of the speeches delivered in French is not made a few days afterwards the English-speaking members will not have cognizance of those speeches until six or eight and sometimes ten months later, in the revised edition of the Debates.
Let me explain in a few words what I mean. The first day after speeches are delivered in this House they appear in the unrevised Hansard in their original text. Two or three days later there is a new publication of the unrevised Hansard wholly in French, and the speeches which were delivered in English are translated and published in this second edition, together with the speeches

which were delivered in French and which have already been published in the first edition. I submit, Sir, that that procedure is unfair to the English-speaking members who, I am sure, are anxious to know what their French-speaking colleagues have said; and it is also unfair to the French-speaking members who desire that their English-speaking colleagues should know what they have said. The object of my resolution is to remedy this state of affairs and have the translation of the French speeches published every Monday; that is. every Monday the speeches which have been delivered in French during the preceding week shall be published in English in a special pamphlet for the benefit of all hon. members.
Last session when I moved this resolution not a dissenting voice was heard; on the contrary, much sympathy was expressed with the object sought to be obtained. The leader of the Government at the time, the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) said on that occasion, and his words are to be found at page 700 of vol. 1 of last year's debates:
I am entirely in sympathy with the idea that these speeches should be translated and at the disposal of members within a reasonable time; and if it be true that it runs to five, six or seven months before these translations appear, that is not a condition of things that ought to be continued. My sympathy, then, is entirely with the purpose of the motion.
The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) also expressed sympathy with the motion in the following words:
This motion has been moved and seconded by two French-speaking members. As a matter of fact it is the English-speaking members who should desire the improvement that my hon. friend is asking for.. . But' if we cannot all understand the French language and have the pleasure of listening to and enjoying the addresses of our French friends, the next best thing is that we shall as early as possible afterwards have those addresses translated into English.
The hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin) and the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) and other hon. members also spoke in favour of the resolution and, as I said before, there was not a dissenting voice.
My right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce at the time suggested that I should call a meeting of the Debates Committee and have the matter discussed. I did so, and the meeting was presided over by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson). The matter was discussed, the Chief Translator, Mr. Leon Gerin, and other translators were present* and two suggestions were made. The first suggestion was that to the English unrevised Hansard published every Monday should be added a translation of the French speeches made during the preceding week. The second suggestion was that a special pamphlet should be published every Monday containing the translation of those French speeches. I wrote my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce at the time and had several interviews with him, and he continued to show his sympathy with my motion. On the last day of last session I called the attention of my right hon. friend to the matter and he again expressed his sympathy with my purpose in these words, which will be found at page 4588, vol. 5 of last year's debates:
The sympathy that I expressed at the time ' my hon. friend introduced this matter still exists. I hope that before another session those of us who are spared to come back will have reached a reasonable and sensible solution of this question. Certainly I feel that in some sense an injury has been done to my English colleagues in that they have not had an opportunity to read the translations of the speeches of their French confreres.
Of course, I expected that during the recess I would receive a letter from my right hon. friend, but I understand he was away on very important duties. When he came back I wrote him under date of 28th January last, reminding him of his promise on the last day of the session and asking him to discuss the matter with the members of the Debates Committee in order that this improvement, as I may call it, should be put into effect this session. The Minister of Trade and Commerce wrote me a letter informing me that he would endeavour to have the matter settled at an early day.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: Did the Debates Committee last year make a report after holding that meeting?


Joseph Archambault: No, I do not
think they made a report, but I had a conversation with my right hon. friend and I think he promised me that he would confer with the member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) and also with Mr. Leon Gerin. I was disappointed to find, when I came back here at the beginning of the session, that no instructions had been given in the matter, and that is why I put this motion on the Order Paper. It is all very well to have the sympathy and encouragement of the minister, but these must be

coupled with practical results. My resolution is a very fair one, I submit; it seeks to accomplish a very useful object. I think I can say without boasting that the English-speaking members of this House would find very valuable and interesting information and suggestions in the translation of speeches made by French members. The object is definite; it is feasible; it is practicable. The session has now proceeded for nearly four weeks, and I would like to see action taken in this matter. I trust that the ministry will accept the resolution; at any rate, I wish to have the opinion of the House with regard to it, and I am confident that it will be favourable.


Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac) :: Mr. Speaker, I shall occupy only a moment or two of the time of the House in availing myself of this opportunity-an opportunity, which I regret to say, very seldom offersitself to me-of agreeing with hon. gentlemen opposite. I am in entire sympathy with the resolution proposed by the hon. member from Chambly-Vercheres (Mr. Archambault). No reason occurs to my mind why this resolution should not be adopted and effect given to the proposal which it contains. Having said that, I do not know that it is necessary to argue the point further. I agree that we on this side of the House, and, for that matter, some hon. gentlemen opposite whose education has been neglected to a certain extent-I mean, those of us who are unable to understand the French language as it is so eloquently and beautifully spoken by hon. gentlemen opposite-feel that we are handicapped because of that lack of understanding. I certainly think that the hon. member voiced the opinion of every hon. gentleman in the House when he said that we would find in the speeches of those who chose to address the House in French very much valuable and instructive information. I shall have very great pleasure in supporting the resolution.
Mr. EMMANUEL d'ANJOU (Rimouski) : (Translation.) I am glad in the first place to offer my congratulations to the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) for the support that he gives to the resolution of my hon. friend, the member for Cham-bly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault), and I am sure that every hon. member from the other side will follow his example, by unanimously passing this resolution, so ably presented to the House.
Last session, I had the honour to be the seconder of the motion which was pre-
sented by my hon. friend from Chambly and Vercheres. I wish to congratulate him because he has thought proper this year to bring it up once more to this chamber and it is with an equal pleasure that I heartily endorse it to-day. It is not necessary for me to argue at length, as the hon. member has explained the question very clearly. Therefore, my remarks will be very brief.
As it is stated in the motion, the French language is one of the official languages of Canada and, therefore of the Canadian Parliament. It is useless to argue this point, inasmuch as the fact is generally known and acknowledged. I do not see then any reason why this motion should not be passed, on the other hand, as the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres so pointedly said, it is more in the interest of the English speaking members that it is introduced.
I may say, without boasting, that I am one of those who always spoke in French and I am glad of it. In 1918, when I sat for the first time in this House, I remember that, during the session, barely five or six speeches were delivered in French and I think that, for my part, I delivered three of them. During the session of 1920, if we take the Hansard it will be found that thirty-five or forty French speeches were delivered. We can see then that the idea made its way and that this resolution is well-timed.
The hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres quoted a moment ago the English text of the remarks made last year on this subject by the right hon. Minister of Commerce, and I will now quote them in French:
I am entirely in sympathy with the idea that these speeches should be translated and at the disposal of the members in a reasonable time ; and if it be true that it runs to five, or six, or seven months before these translatiohs appear, that is not a condition of things that ought to be continued. My sympathy then is entirely with the purpose of the motion, but this is a matter which pertains to the management of the translators and the publishing of the debates and is under the Debates Committee, composed ' cf members of both sides of the House.
As it was said by the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres, nothing was done in that direction. We are now in the fourth week of the session and we do not hear that the Government has the intention to comply with my hon. friend's request.
I will not urge that point any longer, because I trust that the Government will agree this year to the motion of the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres. It is a question of justice as well as of courtesy toward hon. members of this House who do not know the French language. On the

other hand I have adopted as a line of conduct to speak in French in this House, and I would be pleased, when I take the floor, to be understood by all, because I do not fear to say what I think.
In conclusion, I wish to say that I hope the House will unanimously agree to the motion of the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres. It will only be doing what is right for the French element of this country and, at the same time, it will help to tighten more firmly the bonds that should exist between the several groups which make up the Canadian nation.


Mr. A. B. COPP (Westmoreland) :: Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer given by my right hon. friend (Sir George Foster) last year to the representations made by the member for Chambly-Vercheres (Mr. Archambault), I had hoped that at this session arrangements would have been made to enable English-speaking members to read the speeches made by their confreres in the French language. It is only a matter, I understand, of working out the details. I am sure that every hon. member who does not understand the French language misses a great deal of pleasure and interest as well as education on account of not being able to follow the remarks made in the House from time to time by hon. gentlemen speaking in that language. I want to associate myself with those who ask that at the earliest moment arrangements be made for the translation of the French speeches into English. I differ with the mover of the resolution in only one respect: I would like to see the translation done from day to day instead of only once a week. If the translation is done only once a week there may be quite a number of speeches in French and some of them might not be read, whereas if we had them from day to day along with speeches of other hon. gentlemen delivered during the same debate or discussion, we should find it much more convenient. I have no desire to take up any more of the time of the House except to associate myself entirely and emphatically with the motion moved by my hon. friend.


Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, the motion moved by my hon. friend (Mr. Archambault) and the communications which he had with me, perhaps, make it necessary that I should occupy a very few moments by way of explanation. At the time my hon. friend brought his motion before the House, I expressed my entire sympathy with the object of his
proposition, and he has detailed absolutely as they occurred the communications which have taken place. On the receipt of his last letter, I at once put myself into communication with the Chairman of the Debates Committee; but unfortunately he has been suffering from ill health, and he has not been able to be present or to attend to the work of that committee. I also had a conversation with the Speaker in reference to the matter, and we saw no particular difficulty in coming to an arrangement which would practically carry out the views held by my hon. friend. I am of the same opinion still, and the different wording which he has given and the more definite statement of his proposition seem to me to offer a solution which might very well be accepted. Personally, not only am I still in entire sympathy, but I would be quite willing to add a little boost to that sympathy on this particular motion.


Hon. S. C. MEWBURN (East Hamilton) :: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the English-speaking members on this side deeply appreciate the hon. member's motion, the purpose of which is to enlighten them in regard to the French speeches in Hansard. He also, by a genial touch, disclosed the inability, which we must admit, of hon. members on this side to read or speak the French language. In these days of supposed strict economy, might I venture to suggest that the hon. member should to-morrow bring in a motion to do away with Hansard altogether. I do not know whether it would be acceptable to the House, but I believe it would be to the country. In that way a great economy would be effected; the work of the House would be expedited and we would not be sitting here so long.


Mr. BELAND:: Make the motion yourself.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, when I saw this motion on the Order Paper at the opening of thi session, I endeavoured to get into touch with the Editor of Debates in order to ascertain what the effect would be were this motion to pass. His unfortunate illness and subsequent death prevented me from doing so. I asked for a memorandum from the Chief Translator, and though he asked to be consulted again on the subject so that he would have an opportunity of giving further and more reliable details, I gather from his memorandum that there is nothing insuperable in the way. While I would prefer that this motion should go to the Debates Committee, I do not think

the importance of further consideration is such as to justify deferring the matter at all. I am quite content that the motion should pass, with only this one proviso, that if it is considered more convenient to print the translations on Monday morning as part of Hansard, that method may be adopted instead of the special sheets.


Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Russell) :: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) on having again brought this motion, to the attention of the House, and on having brought it forward in such a manner as to secure the unanimous endorsation of hon. 'members. In connection with the subject to which the motion refers, I was reminded, while the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) was speaking, of two remarkable instances in connection with members in this chamber. The first that I was reminded of refers to the case of a Mr. Gigault who, many years ago, I think between 1882 and 1887, occupied a seat in this House. In those days, my participation in the work of Parliament was from the gallery of the House in which I was, perhaps, at that time the most frequent attender. The gentleman to whom I refer came to Parliament and in the first session was unable to speak a word of English; but by continuous application and close study, that gentleman, in the last session of that Parliament, delivered in English an address which, in cogency of argument and in felicity of phrase, equalled the speech of any English-speaking man who then occupied a seat in the House. That was a remarkable performance. I understand that the gentleman to whom I refer was the representative of Rouville. In this Parliament and in our own day, indeed, in very recent days, we have seen that achievement duplicated the other way around in the case of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Although still quite a young man, I remember the right hon. gentleman's advent to this chamber; I was in the gallery when he entered the House, and I heprd him make his first speech here. I have been a fairly close student of his political career since then, not always agreeing with it, but always maintaining a very great respect and esteem for the right hon. gentleman's capacity and ability. While there are in that right hon. gentleman's career some things to which, of course, as a political opponent, I am bound to take exception, I want to pay this tribute to him to-day, that of all

the things that stand to his credit, there is none which equals his mastery of the French language within the last few years. For that reason, as well as for the cordial way in which the hon. member for Fron-tenac (Mr. Edwards) and other hon. gentlemen opposite have received the motion of the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres, (Mr. Archambault) I think the House and the country are to be congratulated upon this brief discussion this afternoon, and the Government also upon their hearty aceptance of the principle embodied in the motion.


Mr. M. R. BLAKE (Winnipeg North) :: Mr. Speaker, I rise, not so much to support the motion of the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) , as to agree with the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Copp). Very few speeches are delivered in French nowadays, and I see no reason why they should not be translated and in our hands the next morning; I do not see the necessity of carrying the translation over for a week. Many issues which are discussed on the floor of this House are past and ancient history in a week and the speeches have passed into oblivion by that time. I agree with the hon. member for Westmoreland that these French speeches should be translated each day and form part of Hansard the next morning.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. WILLIAM SMITH (South Ontario) moved:: Minister of Agriculture in the Ontario Government stated the other day that he had convinced a very prominent man in Scotland that the embargo should be removed. I have talked more hours with Mr. Montgomery than this gentleman ever talked minutes with him, and I know that he has not persuaded Mr. Montgomery that it would he in the best interests of the Old Country that the embargo should be removed.
One word more, and then I will leave this matter in the hands of the House. It is just possible that I may not have the sympathy of the Government, the sympathy of the House, or the sympathy of the country at my back, but notwithstanding that, I am convinced from my own observation and experience that my resolution is in the right direction.
Mr. WILLIAM H. WHITE (Victoria, Alta.): Mr. Speaker, I am very glad indeed that the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Smith) has brought this question before the House. He is a man who has had a great deal of experience in the live stock business and knows stock conditions on both sides of the Atlantic. His opinions are therefore of considerable weight. From personal experience I cannot say what advantages might accrue to this country if the embargo on cattle were raised. Although I have been interested in a small way in the raising of stock during a large part of my life, I have never been a shipper or importer of cattle, but I take it from the large stock growers, particularly of Western Canada, who have both exported and imported stock, that their anxiety to have the embargo removed must be attributable to some definite advantages which they foresee. The raising of the embargo is a thing with which this Parliament or this Government has little to do, and it is very doubtful whether we shall ever succeed in that direction. The alternate proposition of my hon. friend I heartily agree with, and that is to establish cold storages and abattoirs on this side of the water to enable us to send our dead meat over.
The first year I came to this House, in 1908, I placed a resolution on the order paper, and, like that which my hon. friend has mentioned, it got side-tracked in some way, not however before it had been discussed to some extent. I remember that both sides of the House agreed with me, and the strongest advocate of cold storage at that time was the right hon. gentleman who is now Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen).

There is one thing that is beyond dispute, and that is that, whether by embargo or by the establishment of cold storage throughout this country, something must be done to carry on the live stock business of the western plains. If our market were closed to the United States there would be no future whatever for this industry, and we know that there are still large areas of grazing land that might be used for the purposes of cattle raising. The Government has made an attempt to stimulate the industry and enhance production, and unless we have some assurance that we are to have outside markets for our cattle very few men will remain in the business for any length of time.
When you reflect that the same grade of cattle that were selling in 1919 as high as twelve and fourteen cents as now sold in the western yards at between five and seven cents, you can see that the business is not in a very healthy condition. The slump in grain prices was large but the slump in prices of cattle was unexpected, and after the experience of the bad winter the year before last many stockmen were thrown out of business. Indeed, I believe that the number of those engaged in the business has declined some 50 per cent in the last year as compared with what it was during the past three or four years. With my hon. friend opposite (Mr. Smith), I say emphatically that something must be done. The removal of the embargo would be highly beneficial and the stockmen of the country seem to think that it would be advantageous. But whether or not the removal of the embargo would be the means of keeping up our industry in Canada, the one thing that I heartily agree with is that some steps should be taken to establish on this side of the water a system of cold storage and abattoirs so that if we were forced out of the American market and could get no relief from the embargo being removed, we should still have a way of handling our stock in this country.


Mr. H. A. MACKIE (Edmonton East) :: I do not favour the resolution on the Order Paper. This matter has been the subject of discussion for the last two or three weeks in the Provincial Legislature of Alberta because a candidate was defeated on this question in an election recently held in England, and it is a sore point with every cattleman in Western Canada. I do not know by what method of reasoning my hon. friend arrives at the conclusion that it is necessary for England to

put a stigma on our cattle in order to develop the industry in Canada. I am not going to take any issue with the mover of the resolution (Mr. Smith) as to the method of increasing our trade in Canada and improving our labour conditions. He may be right on that point or he may he wrong. But there is one thing that the Canadian people in Western Canada will not stand, and that is an indirect method of adopting protection in England without a tariff, by placing a mark of inferiority on our cattle which they do not deserve. I sincerely hope that if the resolution is adopted it will be only after considerable protest on the part of hon. members. I will not go into any lengthy discussion of this matter, because the press has been full of the subject for the last two or three weeks, dealing with it from a provincial as well as a Federal point of view. But I wish to take my stand against the resolution and to say that I differ from the hon. member for Victoria, Alta. (Mr. White) who supports it.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: Like my hon. friend from Victoria, Alta. (Mr. White) I have the highest appreciation of what the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Smith) has done for the live stock industry of this country, and I am sure that every member of this House who has taken the trouble to acquaint himself with the record of my hon. friend on this subject will listen with the greatest respect to any views which he advances at any time upon the live stock industry of this country. I go this distance, at any rate, in sympathy with my hon. friend's resolution and in opposition, I think, to the spirit of the remarks of the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Mackie), that I have no sympathy whatsoever with the attempts to get Canadian cattle into Britain by means of the crowbar. I observe there are politicians over in Britain who tell the British people how they should conduct their business. Well, the attempts of these gentlemen remind me of the fact that a distinguished British statesman was sitting forty years ago at a dinner table in London next to a distinguished European diplomatist who was loud-mouthed in his criticisms of Mr. Gladstone's Government of that date because he could not keep order in Ireland. The British statesman said that he refrained from pointing out to this diplomatist that he would be in a better position to criticise the inability of Mr. Gladstone's Government to keep order 45
in Ireland if his own Government could keep order in its capital. The friend to whom he spoke asked him why he had refrained from so stating. He replied: "Because I have learned the truth of Cham-fort's saying, that in this world we have often to be instructed upon many things by people who know nothing about them." I am opposed to the method of the crowbar because I believe in the golden rule.
I believe in doing to others as I would be done by, and I know nothing in this world that would create a greater storm in Canada than if any British statesman were to come here and insist that we should have a free market for Lancashire cottons because they were better than Canadian cottons. I have not imagination enough to conceive of the storm that would be created. Of course there is a reason for that. While we, who have lived any time in the world, know that all men are equal, we have also learned that as a rule, especially today, youngsters know a great deal more than their fathers. While I have a great respect for the knowledge of Canadians, and I have great respect for their knowledge of their own business I do think that we ought to extend an equal respect to the British people in regard to their business.
I want to endorse what has fallen from my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. White), and to carry his remarks a little further. He said we have very little to do with what the British people take into Britain. I should say that we have nothing to do with it; and I support my view upon that by reminding this House that we would not for one moment stand for British statesmen interfering to-day with any tariff we liked to put on goods here. However, I have to differ from my hon. friend in regard to his resolution to tViis extent-that I think under freedom we should get a great many of the advantages that he dilates upon very wisely and very truly. I think the more of our cattle we finish at home the better it will be for the live stock industry; but if we have a free entry into Britain for our cattle we should not be compelled to sell them there-we should have perfect freedom in the matter. After all it is rather an abstract question to discuss. We could send cattle alive or we could send the meat frozen, or in any shape that it pleased us to send it and the people with whom we were dealing to receive it. Under freedom we should have all the advantages that my hon. friend points out; we could sell just as we wanted to do.



I do not know whether the House would bear with me if I offered to tell them how they could sell more beef in Britain. They could sell more beef in Britain if they bought more cotton and woollen goods there. It is very elementary-and here I am talking about what pertains to Canadian rights, Canadian opinions, and Canadian business. If, as my hon. friend from Victoria asserts, we need more markets for our agricultural produce, and I certainly agree with him, if such a market is to be found in Britain, there is one way to get it: We must give some inducement for the ships to come to Canada and carry produce over, and ships do not carry loads one way in this world if they can carry them two ways. Now, as a matter of fact, at the present moment Manchurian wheat, Argentine wheat, Australian wheat, is beating Manitoba wheat out of the markets in Britain by its cheapness. That is a matter of fact at the present moment. What is the consequence? That British ships are going to Manchuria, going to Australia, going to the Argentine-especially to the Argentine where the tariffs are extremely low against British goods-and they are carrying wheat from all these places. If we want to compete with these countries in the matter of wheat then the lesson is obvious-bring the ships to our coasts. The same thing applies to cattle. ,
I consider this Government had a magnificent opportunity at the end of the war if they had had the courage and initiative -a magnificent opportunity. We are very much the nearest of the outlying portions of the Empire to- Britain. During the war immense sympathy was created between Britain and this country. Not only was sympathy created, but we had a ferry boat service established between this country and the Old Country by the exigencies of the war. Reduced to economic considerations why was that ferry boat service established? Because we had the markets for our goods: not only Britain but the other nations of Europe had to have our goods. Thank God, the exigencies of the war disappeared, but the exigencies of economics remain with us; and the thought I want to leave with my hon. friend and with the House is, that if we want markets we must give them. If we want to get our cattle into Britain we must reduce our tariff against British goods and bring the ships to our shores. I say there was a magnificent opportunity because of the sympathy that had been created between this country and the Old Country, and because of our near-
ness to the Old Country. If we had had a government of initiative and courage at the end of the war they would have seen the state of affairs coming to which I have referred. They would have seen the wheat produced in other countries beating our western wheat, they would have seen the cattle from Australia and from the Argentine beating our cattle-because there is a large amount of cattle being taken from both of these countries to Britain, three and four times the distance that Canada is from the Old Country-and they would have reduced the tariff and kept up some portion at least of what I have ventured to describe as "the ferry boat service" that was established during the war.
I regret extremely on personal grounds that if my hon. friend takes this resolution to a vote I cannot vote with him. I see much, force in many of the things that he said but he would hardly expect me. While I agree with him that we have nothing to do with telling Great Britain what she should do, he would hardly expect me as a free trader to do anything to persuade Britain to keep up obstacles against trade in any shape or form whatsoever. For . these reasons if my hon. friend takes his resolution to a vote I am afraid I shall have to vote against it and, I repeat, I shall do so, on personal grounds, with very much regret.


Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: The Order Paper would indicate that the resolution now before the House is one that is commanding the attention of quite a number of hon. members. The present resolution is followed on the Order Paper by another motion from an hon. member who holds entirely opposite views to those advocated by the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Smith). I doubt if there is in the Dominion a man who can speak with greater knowledge of the subject than the mover of the resolution we are now discussing. He has been identified with the live stock interests of Canada for many years. He has occupied a very prominent place among the live stock breeders of this country, and I am inclined to attach considerable importance to the views which he holds with regard to this question which is apparently exercising the minds of a great number of people to a marked degree at the present time.
I have a very distinct recollection of the coming into effect of the embargo against Canadian cattle. At that time my special interest in farming was in finishing

beef cattle for the British market, and I have since been engaged in that business to a greater or less extent almost continuously. I have a very vivid recollection of the predictions that were made when the embargo was placed against our cattle, and I have followed the discussion very closely from that time down to the present. In November of 1892, when some suspected cases of pleuro-pneumonia were discovered in a shipment of cattle from Toronto, the embargo was placed against Canadian cattle. It was in effect previous to that time against cattle from the United States from the year 1879. I have a recollection of a motion moved by the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Smith) in 1905 advocating the bringing to this country of British experts with a view to having them ascertain whether there was any disease among our cattle or not. There is no contention on the part of the British authorities to-day that this embargo is being maintained against our cattle by reason of disease; they freely admit that it is a system of protection in favour of those engaged in the cattle industry in the Old Land. Notwithstanding the address this afternoon by that ardent free trader from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) on his old hobby, I think he can find examples in Great Britain of protection that ought to be a lesson to a younger country like Canada, and it seems to me that we might very well copy some of the policies pursued by the British Government.
As far as I am concerned I do not presume to advise the people of Great Britain what they should do in this matter. For many years I felt very sore to think that while our cattle were free from disease the embargo was still maintained against us, but after having heard such an ardent free trader as the hon. member for Red Deer get up in this House a few years ago and take an entirely opposite view to the one that he would like us to believe that he is in favour of to-day, I have not felt quite so sore. I have reference to the debate on the Naval question, which I am using just to illustrate the inconsistency of the hon. gentleman. His argument then was to manufacture the finished product (Battleships) in our own country in order to employ Canadian labour and have the money spent in producing the finished article spent in Canada. I do not wish to get away from the subject before the House, but I do desire to point out that there are two sides to this question, and that we had better make the best of what we now believe is the
45i
established policy in Great Britain in regard to the cattle embargo.
I am sorry to think that during the last few months an effort has been made in certain quarters to make this a political issue. Only to-day I notice prominently featured on the front pages of the Ottawa press references to the Ontario Minister of Agriculture who is now in London, and I am going to quote some of the newspaper articles which have appeared during the last few days. It is only about two weeks ago that the Provincial Treasurer of Ontario, Hon. Peter Smith, delivered an address in the town of St. Marys. I quote from the report of that meeting given in the daily press:
St. Mary's, Feb., 20.-Hon. Peter Smith, in his address at the opening of the new TJ.F.O. Club room here Saturday afternoon, touched briefly on the Drury-Morrison controversy, declaring it was an unfortunate affair.
Excuse me, I have started reading in the wrong place. This is the part to which I wished to call attention. The speaker referred to is Hon. Peter Smith:
The speaker mentioned the amount of tuberculosis in cattle, saying that it had been necessary to kill 84 out of 85 head at Montelth.
To Hon. Manning Doherty, he said, will go the whole credit if the embargo on cattle is lifted by Great Britain which is likely to be the case.
A herd of cattle on a Government farm managed by the provincial authorities of Ontario diseased to the extent of 84 out of 85! This would not indicate that our bill of health is so clean as some people imagine. I also notice the following in the Ottawa press of February 23rd:
The resolution moved in the Quebec Legislature by the Hon. J. E. Caron, Minister of Agriculture, and seconded by Premier Taschereau, is as follows:
"This House, after obtaining knowledge of the facts of the embargo against Canadian cattle, believes that this embargo is not justified and regrets that it is maintained. Mr. Caron speaking on the question, said, in part: I do not like the policy of the British authorities. It is a strange stand they take on this embargo question. They claim that Great Britain is the country of free trade in commerce. That does not exist for us, but does exist in large degree for the United States. We have helped England and made so many sacrifices that I believe that Great Britain should consider us at least as favorably as the United States."
As a matter of fact this embargo does not rest against Canadian cattle any more than it does against cattle from the United States or any other country, it applies to all countries. In November, 1902, regulations were put in effect by the British Board of Agriculture to prevent cattle from Canada coming into that country, and in

1894	the British statuts with regard to cattle embargoes were consolidated. In
1895	the provision by which the Board of Agriculture might exempt cattle coming from any country was cancelled and the embargo was embodied in a statute. In that statute Canada was not mentioned specifically; the embargo is applicable to all countries.
Now, why were the British authorities so anxious to keep cattle disease out of their country? It is not necessary to say that the British people are pretty shrewd and well able to take care of their own interests. Stock breeders from all parts of the world look to Great Britain to secure stock of high quality to improve their herds and flocks. Previous to the imposition of the embargo disease had for years decimated the British herds to such a degree that the authorities were amply justified in adopting protective measures. It is now admitted by those authorities that they cannot afford to remove this embargo. Those who are engaged in the livestock industry in Great Britain, and who are bringing tremendous revenues to their country by reason of their sales of livestock, do not feel that their interests ought to be jeopardized by permitting importations of livestock from outlying parts of the world. The hon. member for South Ontario has pointed out what the result is in respect to Ireland alone. The same might be said in respect to Scotland. The farmers in Great Britain have benefited immensely by reason of the embargo. I do not know, but possibly on account of the unsettled conditions that prevail in Great Britain, particularly in labour circles, the British Government may be forced to change their policy on this subject. I think myself that it is very unfortunate that we should endeavour to stir up any further labour troubles in Great Britain, because we all know they have enough to contend with in any event. But I notice in the Ottawa papers this morning the following:
Hon. Manning H. Doherty, Ontario Minister ot Agriculture, had a star place among the speakers and made special reference to London newspaper attacks on him in regard to his attitude on the embargo....
Mr. Doherty proceeded to prove that Canada possessed a clear bill of health from thirty years of official records and denied the charge of disease as one of the most unmitigated falsehoods ever promulgated. The same was true of the assertion that those who believed in the agitation would make money by the removal of the embargo. Not one of them would make a dollar, he said.

Mr. Doherty readily admitted that the matter was one for negotiation between Great Britain and the Federal authorities.
Evidently he recognizes that he has no authority to go over there and deal with the British Government or any one acting on behalf of the British Government. He is simply there in the capacity of a private individual, evidently trying to stir up trouble in labour circles in Great Britain. I think it is rather significant that the Minister of Agriculture for Quebec should adopt the same attitude; and I believe the same attitude has been adopted by some of the members of provincial governments in Western Canada. It is unfortunate, I think, that this aspect of the situation should be forced on the people as it has been. The resolution practically intimates that notwithstanding all these press notices that are being featured, we had better attend to our own business and let Great Britain do the same. In brief, I think that is the substance of the resolution, and I heartily agree with those sentiments. The hon. member for Victoria, Alta. (Mr. White), has pointed out the conditions that prevailed in 1919 and those which prevail to-day with regard to the live stock industry, and states that there has been a great fall in the price of beef cattle. That is quite true. There has been a serious deflation in the prices of all farm products, and it has struck the farmer a little in advance of most other people; consequently he is somewhat apprehensive as to what the future has in store for him.
In that regard I wish to refer to something which may have escaped the attention 'of hon. members who have not been engaged in farming operations. For the last few years we have been drawing very heavily upon our capital account and trying to make ourselves believe that we have been making good profits. The day is not far distant when we shall be forced, by the fact that our capital has become exhausted, to adopt different methods. That has been quite evident in the older provinces during the last few years, where there has been a desire to produce as much as possible while prices were high. A very poor system of farming has been carried on through those years, and the result is quite apparent. I believe that the same condition prevails throughout Western Canada. Reference has teen made to the shipments of grain to England from Manchuria, Argentina and other

parts of the world. I have on a number of occasions pointed out the effect that the shipment of so much wheat and so little flour from this country has had, and have even gone so far as to advocate the putting into commission of some of the Government-owned transports in order that flour, the finished product, should not be discriminated against but should be put on an equal footing with wheat in regard to ocean rates. As it is to-day, there is a preference of about fifteen cents a bushel in favour of wheat and against flour, and I think that militates against the interests of the farmer of Canada to a greater degree than the average man realizes.
Before, during and since the war, Great Britain controlled the shipping of the world. While the people of that country are, in a sense, a free trade people, they are doubly protected in that their government arrange to bring them the raw material by which they can finish their stock with the mill feed and put that stock on the market-a market in which it will command the highest price because it has an advantage over stock from other countries by reason of the embargo. Now, I do not blame the people of Great Britain for doing this; it is good business on their part; and it would be good business on our part if we adopted similar measures with regard to our raw material and fed it in this country. I have always believed and contended that a country which ships out its raw material in the unfinished state is bound to remain a poor country. It is the finished article that commands (the high price. Why is there a difference of from three to five cents a pound between the stocker and the finished animal? Because the finished animal is the one that is most desirable, and will bring to those who finish it a price that the man who raises the stocker will not receive. Why are so many anxious to have a market for the stocker? Because they are following the line of least resistance. Many of our friends in Western Canada have for some years found conditions much easier than we have in the older provinces. While they have been able to grow big crops and to let their cattle run on the ranches without the care we are forced to give to the cattle in the older provinces, they view with alarm the possibility of their cattle being debarred from the United States under the tariff that may be put into effect
by the new government there. They think, therefore, that it would be advisable in any event, to have the British embargo removed, because their unfinished cattle would then be able to reach that market. That would be all right, but I believe that the remedy we should adopt is the one under which we shall notf be drawing on our capital account but shall be enriching the soil that is under cultivation in this country. I have thought for years that instead of endeavouring to spread our people over more acres and bring more land under cultivation it would be better to farm more intensively the land that has already been broken up. Some hon. gentlemen opposite endeavour to leave the impression that we have in Ontario quite a number of abandoned farms. I do not know where there is one abandoned farm in Ontario, notwithstanding the frequent assertions to the contrary made by the hon. gentlemen opposite.


Thomas Vien: Is it not a fact that the rural statistics of Ontario show that there is a decreased acreage under cultivation?


Donald Sutherland: No, I do not think they do. There is a much larger area used for grazing than there was a few years ago, on account of farm labour not being available. What this country requires more than anything else is people from the Old Land. Bring the emigrants from the Old Land-those who will go on the land- and thus enable our farmers to carry on as they should carry on, and you will be doing something for the benefit of the whole of the people of Canada. Do not pay too much attention to this cry that is being raised that we must debar immigrants from coming into this country, because in our towns and cities hundreds and thousands of people are out of employment. Have hon. members ever stopped to ask themselves why so many people are out of employment? They are out of employment because they will not do the work that is here ready and waiting for some one to tackle; but rather than do the work that ought to be and must be done before we shall be able to meet our obligations, many people Will accept aid in order to carry them on in the hope that something congenial may turn up. We must face the situation with courage. I am satisfied that we have been pursuing a most wasteful and prodigal policy with regard to our natural resources. We have found our natural resources being depleted

to such a degree that many people, it is true, are anxious to get off the farms and they are getting off the farms very fast. They have drawn on their capital, and with the profit they have made in addition to that, they are in a position to leave the farm and allow the land to be tilled by some one else, while they seek employment elsewhere.
To my mind, the live stock industry of this country is our only hope for replenishing the depleted soil fertility of our farms, and we should apply ourselves, with proper Government assistance, in order to see that those who are finishing the live stock of this country ready for the market are not hampered as they have been hampered, and seriously hampered, for many years past by reason of regulations passed which did not permit them to have a fair show in finishing their stock for the market. I have pointed this out on numerous occasions in this House, indeed, until some people have begun to think that this is a fad of mine and that there is really not so much in it after all. I refer to the adulteration of millfeed. But I am more convinced to-day than I have ever been in the past that I was right, and that we must remedy those conditions and make it possible for the farmers of this country not only to raise the best kind of stock that can be raised, but to finish them, and we must see that that live stock can be placed on the market in the easiest possible manner. I believe it would be much more desirable to have abattoirs at points nearer where the animals are finished than to have them at the seaboard as has been advocated by some hon. members. If our animals are shipped to Great Britain in a finished condition, as they ought to be, the farmers of this country will benefit much more than they would by shipping out the unfinished animals. I am not so much alarmed about this embargo which has been on the statutes of Great Britain since 1895, but which was in effect by an order of the Board of Agriculture in 1892. I believe the live stock industry of this country, with the high-grade breeding stock that we have been bringing out from Great Britain, has a bright future. But these things will have to be done; we shall have to have better facilities, and better transportation rates must be had for the shipment of stock than we have at the present time.
I might give just one illustration of the handicaps under which we are labouring to-day. I am now finishing cattle that

were raised in Western Canada near Bat-tleford, and hon. members can understand that with a six days' trip from Battle-ford to Toronto, and then from Toronto to my farm, considerable expense is entailed before those cattle reach the stable where they are to be finished. I have not the- slightest doubt that the system in vogue in Western Canada will be changed very materially in the near future, and instead of sending out the unfinished animals, the raisers of live stock will finish with grain, which is raised in such immense quantities in that part of the country, thus finishing them in Western Canada, and in a few years the number of finished live stock that will be shipped out of Western Canada will greatly surprise many members of this House. I do not intend to take up any more of the time of the House in regard to this matter, but I contend that the finishing of our live stock in this country will be conducive to the breeding of better stock; that it will result in a much better system of farming, and that the fertility of the soil will be greatly enhanced as a result of such methods. Consequently, I approve leaving the British authorities to manage their own business in that respect, and we shall be doing very well when we mind our own, because they admit they have adopted this measure in Great Britain for the protection of their farmers.


Hon. RODOLPHE LEM IE UX (Maison-neuve) :: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up much of the time of the House as I have on the Order Paper a resolution dealing with the same subject. I am not rising to answer my hon. friend (Mr. Sutherland) or the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Smith) who, we all know, is very familiar with the subject and who is himself one of the best stock breeders in this country. His motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, it would not be in the interests of Canada should the Government of Great Britain remove the embargo upon cattle going into the United Kingdom.
I do not oppose this motion on the grounds taken by my hon. friend, who is very familiar with the business and who, I understand, has in mind the establishment of abattoirs and of a big trade in beef and meat with other countries. As to that, I have nothing to say; but I rise this afternoon, not because I wish to meddle with any domestic business which concerns Great Britain, but because I think we should not let Canadian cattle lie under

the stigma with which it is now being branded throughout the world. That is the only point which I wish to make. I am too much a friend of Canadian autonomy myself to go and meddle with political matters in Great Britain. Great Britain is free to mind her own business as Canada is free to mind hers. We know that the tie between Great Britain and Canada is very slender. Indeed the only ties which bind us to the Mother Country, are first, the Crown; second, the Governor General, and third, the appeals to the Privy Council, and then there is that right of veto which the home Government has never exercised. As an hon. gentleman said the other day, in our domestic affairs, we are practically absolutely free. I do not wish to interfere with the policies of British statesmen when those policies concern only the United Kingdom; but whenever in Great Britain a policy is pursued which directly affects the interests or rights of Canada, I as a Canadian, as' a free man, and, I will say,- as a Britisher, have a right to remonstrate politely, but to remonstrate firmly with the Mother Country; and in the present instance I claim it is not meddling with British politics to protest that on this question of the embargo, to say the least, a very grievous mistake, nay more, a very serious wrong has been committed.
I know of only one man of late years who has taken up this matter and made a political issue of it. He is a Canadian, and we all know his name-Lord Beaverbrook. I think not many will approve the stand he has taken in England on this question. Personally I do not think he took the proper stand on the embargo in the by-election which took place in England only a few days ago. He had no mandate to speak for the Canadian people and was therefore simply importing a Canadian issue into British politics. But We, the members of the Canadian Parliament, speaking for the whole people of Canada, have the right to remonstrate with the Board of Agriculture in Great Britain and say:	You have adopted
a measure prohibiting Canadian cattle from being landed on the docks at Liverpool, Glasgow, or any other port in the United Kingdom on the pretext that these cattle are tainted with a disease; now it has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that the disease did not exist in that case, and we protest against this libel against our Canadian cattle. If the Britsih Government wish to adopt a protective policy, which the embargo is in effect, I do not object to
that, but in that case let them say openly that it is a measure of protection for the cattle breeders in Scotland and in the north of Ireland. The various Canadian legislatures which of late have adopted resolutions on this question have not been animated by any political motives. It is a Canadian question which effects Canadian stock breeders and Canada at large, and the legislatures of Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and Alberta also, I believe, spoke only the minds of the people. Their remonstrances were couched in very dignified language, and I do not think we in this Parliament are debarred from speaking to the Mother Country in language such as was used by .these divers Canadian legislatures.
Let me say that I have had the honour to belong to a Government which gave a preference to the Mother Country. That preference was tne crowning work of the hon. gentleman who sits beside me, the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). There were Canadians at the time who said:	Now that you are giving
a preference to the Mother Country, you should at the same time claim a reciprocal preference from her. But the hon. gentleman answered:	No, it suits Canada to
give a preference to Britain; we ask nothing in return. That is exactly the attitude which as Canadians we take with the Mother Country in fiscal matters. We are free to act as we please, and if to-morrow Great Britain adopts a tariff against Canadian goods what complaint have we? Have we not ourselves' taxed British goods for the last forty-five years, and was it not a Canadian statesman who in answer to the complaint that our tariff against British goods might perhaps break the British connection made the famous retort "So much the worse for the British connection.'' That is not my view, but it was the view held by someone well known to the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster). No, Mr. Speaker, on trade matters we are perfectly free, and for myself I admire good old England which in spite of all these tariffs against her from Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the premier Dominion, and the United States has maintained free trade throughout all these years.


George Green Foster: Just for my own information I should like my hon. friend to verify the quotation he gave just now. Can he do it?


Mr. LEMIEUX:: It is now a matter of history. The words were used by Sir John A. Macdonald, but we know that he was not always in earnest in what he said, and he might have used these words in a Pickwickian sense. At all events, they were attributed to him.
To come back to this question of the embargo, I think no one will deny the accuracy of the statement made by the late Sir Charles Tupper. He was a stout Canadian, and also a good Britisher, and when he was High Commissioner in London he tackled this question-and he was the first High Commissioner to do it-with the Board of Agriculture in England. I thought when I quoted him the other day in speaking on the Address, that I would find a report of his activities in connection with this matter in his memoirs, but I failed to find it there. I had read it in the Life of Sir Charles Tupper by Mr. J. W. Long-ley, where I read, at page 184:
Sir Charles Tupper's acceptance of the High Commissionership left a large blank in the political life of Canada, but he acted in accordance with true patriotism in accepting this post, and raised it to an importance not contemplated when it was originally created. He infused great vigor into his discharge of duties previously regarded as prefunctory, and was watchful regarding everything which concerned Canada's interests. When the Imperial Government was about to take steps to prevent Can. adian cattle being admitted to Great Britain on the ground that disease had been discovered among cattle in some parts of the United States, Sir Charles went straight to Liverpool with British experts, caused several animals selected by the experts to be slaughtered and carefully examined, in which technical investigation, his medical education gave him a strong position. So far as it was in human power to establish the unimpeachable freedom of Canadian cattle from all disease, Sir Charles was absolutely triumphant. Not a trace of disease was found in a single animal slaughtered. But this had no effect in staying the determination to place an embargo on Canadian cattle, which have remained ever since under the bann, though the most conclusive evidence has been repeatdly furnished that no disease existed. This leads to the suspicion that other reasons than fear of disease contributed to uphold this policy. It had every appearance of being a prohibitive measure in the interests of British cattle-raisers. This matter has only been referred to as an instance of the personal devotion of Sir Charles in determining that no means should be spared to see that the cattle industry of Canada was given fair play.
I have quoted this just to show that it has been established beyond a shadow of a doubt that the charge that our cattle are tainted with pleuro-pneumonia is unfounded. The intent and purport of my motion that humble representations be made to the British authorities that in the event of the embargo against Canadian cattle

being maintained, the British authorities should state that it is not because our cattle are diseased, but simply because they wish to maintain a protective measure for the cattle raisers of the United Kingdom. That is the purport of my motion, which of course, is not now under discussion, but I might urge this in connection with the motion of my hon. friend the respected member for South Ontario (Mr. Smith). If a vote is taken on this question I shall vote not so much against the text of the resolution introduced by my hon. friend because he upheld by a very sensible statement the object of his resolution which is the development of the meat industry and the chilling process in Canada, and the establishment of abattoirs. I have no objection to that. But he spoke also about the embargo, and therein lies the difference between himself and myself. I have no objection to the embargo provided it is well understood that the reason for it is not that our cattle are diseased, for that is a mere myth. The British Government may impose all sorts of i prohibitive measures they deem fit. It is their business and they are free to act in their capacity as legislators on the other side, as we do in Canada, on trade matters affecting us. But I do seriously object to our Canadian cattle being stigmatized throughout the world as tainted with disease.


Donald Sutherland: Is it not a fact that when the embargo was placed upon United States cattle going into Britain in 1879, the condition was laid down that Canada would have to impose a ninety-day quarantine against American cattle coming into this country? And, after that had been done, did not the United States retaliate by imposing a similar restriction on Canadian cattle going into that country?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not contest my hon. friend's assertion in this regard. He may be right. But what is absolutely true to-day is that as a result of investigation after investigation held during the lastthirty years our Canadian cattle have been declared wholly free from disease, and this fact has been admitted without reserve. During the past summer the Imperial Press Conference, as is well known, visited Canada and it was a revelation to me to read some of the speeches made by some gentlemen who accompanied that delegation. In answer to questions put to them regarding the prohibition against our Canadian cattle, some of the representatives of the

Imperial Conference admitted that there was no contagious disease in the cattle raised in this country, but that the question involved was merely one of protection for the cattle-raisers of the Old Country. Once more, let me say that I do not object to Great Britain having a tariff against Canada or any other country. It is her business to act as she sees best in this respect, and John Bull is a shrewd old business man. But I certainly do object to the libel.
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queen's) [DOT] As a contribution to history, if I can make nothing better of the matter,
I think I can supply the information on which my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) desired regarding that quotation. 1 do not think it came from Sir John Macdonald. It came from the Toronto Mail and Empire, which was very close to Sir John and at that time was regarded as his organ. So much for the history of the quotation.
Now, the resolution of the hon. member (Mr. Smith) is quite contrary to the one proposed by my hon. friend from Maison-neuve (Mr. Lemieux). The mover of the resolution wants the embargo retained; my hon. friend from Maisonneuve seeks to have it removed. The question is a very old one. I quite agree with my hon. friend from Maisonneuve that we have the right to remonstrate in regard to any question that effects us prejudicially, and that as British subjects it is our privilege to go and state our views before the government of the Old Country. But having stated them fully and accurately, I do not see what there is to be gained by our continuing to nag at the British Government. As I say, this is an old story. Several hon. gentlemen have given us dates of the embargoes. I remember a good many years ago when Lord Onslow was Minister of Agriculture in the British Government. I had discussed the matter with him. I happened to be in England soon after there was a change of government. Meeting Lord Onslow I said: " I see that C. B. has come in C. B. was the familiar designation of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman-" and I presume that the folk who have been agitating for the removal of the embargo will now have their way." He said:	" I bet you they
won't." Well, I did not take the bet, and it was well that I did not, for I should have lost. Some British politicians occasionally argue in favour of the abolition of the embargo, but the Department of Agriculture of the British Government -strongly supported by the landed interests of England-have been determined to keep it up, and they will continue to do so. But the embargo is no longer put upon the ground that there is disease in Canadian cattle. My hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) says that what he complains of is the libel which the embargo places upon our cattle. Well, he is mistaken, for if ever disease was attributed as a reason for the embargo that is no longer the case. The reason is entirely one of self-protection on the part of the British people. They admit freely that our cattle are free from disease. But it is argued that there is more than a possibility of disease being introduced from the United States through Canada and in that way affecting the cattle in the Mother Country. That is the sole ground on which they place the embargo. I read recently a very interesting article from the pen of Lord Crewe on this subject. He was formerly Colonial Secretary, and to-day, I think, he is leader of the Liberal Opposition in the British House of Lords. He has written a strong letter regarding the action of Lord Lee, President of the Board of Agriculture, who preceded the member that was defeated the other day, and he says that the agriculturists of England are standing behind Lord Lee in this matter, and will insist on this regulation being kept up. I am inclined to think that at bottom it was a protective measure; I have a suspicion that it was designed to protect the cattle raisers of England and Ireland. An hon. member says that he wants them to admit that. Well, did you ever know a man to admit a protective policy squarely as such? You sometimes adopt measures which some people describe as protective, but you hate to call them so yourself, and that is about the situation to-day in England. I thing that this measure is retained owing to their desire-a desire with which hon. gentlemen opposite should not, I think, find fault-to protect the cattle trade of England and Ireland. In recent days, however, as I have already stated, disease in Canada is no longer given as a reason for the embargo, and the British authorities make this absolutely clear. The letter of Lord Crewe, to which I have already referred, and the declarations of other authorities in England, emphatically state that the cattle of Canada are free from disease. This being the case, therefore, I do not see that there is any libel on Can-

ada. It is contended, however, that there is a danger of cattle disease being brought into England from the United States through Canada.


Herbert John Mackie: Has any
statement been made by the British House of Commons to the effect that the embargo is merely a measure of protection?


Mr. FIELDING:: I do not suppose that the British Commons have made any such declaration; I should not expect it. But even if that is so, I think it is beyond dispute that the ground is no longer taken that the embargo is due to any disease in our cattle. That reason has been abandoned, and it is now useless to argue against the embargo on the ground that there is any objection to our cattle by reason of disease. The British Board of Agriculture admit that there is no disease in Canadian cattle; Lord Crewe and Lord Lee both admit the same thing; and all the literature on the subject is clear that the whole ground, good or bad, has nothing to do with any question of disease in our cattle.


Mr. CURRIE:: As the hon. member is
a student of this subject, may I ask him to go further and state that Lord Beaver-brook's contention was not one in favour of the admission of Canadian cattle but in favour of cheap meat and cheap bread? That is the whole question.


William Stevens Fielding: I would rather not introduce Lord Beaverbrook into the matter; but I quite agree that if we feel aggrieved in this matter at all, it is our right as citizens and as a Parliament to remonstrate. Having remonstrated, and having the facts clearly placed before us, I think all will agree with me that is is rather undignified to keep nagging on the question all the time. It is a matter entirely for the British people, although we may have the right to think they are wrong. I think they are wrong in the matter, but since, after full deliberation the British Government and the British Parliament, the leaders of public opinion in Great- Britain-those who have a powerful influence, or practically speaking, the controlling influence in the British Parliament, in the House of Lords, in the House of Commons and in the various departments-have made up their minds, are we to be continually asking them to recede from their position? I have no objection to it being declared that the Canadian people think the embargo is a mistake, but I do not think the matter is one which we should

threaten and bluster and make a great fuss about, and make it appear that the British Government and the British Parliament are treating us in a very bad way. The matter is one which is entirely within their right. They have a right to be wrong if they want to, and I am quite willing to concede that to them.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON (Qu'Appelle) :: If I believed that the removal of the embargo would discourage the finishing of cattle in Canada, or necessarily discourage us in establishing abattoirs, I would be disposed to vote for the resolution of my hon. friend because he probably knows more about the live stock industry than any other man in this House. But I have not heard anything to convince me that the removal of the embargo would interfere in the least with the finishing of beef cattle in Canada. I had hoped that when my hon. friend was dealing with the question he would have given us some information upon it because his knowledge is probably better than that of the majority of us. I would have liked to have heard him state what the effect of the embargo has been in the matter of encouraging people to finish cattle in Canada for the English market. If he could have told us the average price paid for Canadian cattle when they reached Liverpool or Scotland, compared with the price of the best Scotch finished beef, and if he could have satisfied us that the Canadian cattle being shipped across under present conditions would bring as high a price as the best Scotch finished animals, I would have said there is a great deal in his argument. But I do not think my hon. friend can give us figures showing anything of the kind. I am rather inclined to think that the price which we receive for our finished stock is not to be for one moment compared with the highest price paid for the stock finished in Scotland. I do not think my hon. friend will for one moment claim that the price paid for Canadian animals comes anyway near the price paid for the Scottish animals. Therefore, if I am right in my supposition, it shows the maintenance of the embargo is an absolute failure for the purpose for which my hon. friend wishes it maintained-it has not had the effect which he thinks it would have.
If that be so we must consider the case from some other standpoint. I would not for one moment wish to be associated with any interference with British legislators. My hon. friend's argument might be argument advanced in opposition to the resolu-

tion placed on the Order Paper by my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) ; it is not argument in favour of the present resolution. If the present resolution means anything at all it amounts to an attempt to give advice to the British legislators * and I think that in England it will be looked upon as such. I think it will Be looked upon there as a bit of advice from this House recommending them to maintain the embargo. It seems to me that that is the only way in which it can be regarded. Therfore I fail to see anything whatever in such an argument.
Let me go back to the question of the finishing of cattle. I do not think that every part of the world is suited to the finishing of beef cattle. As a matter of fact I doubt very much if the cattle that we look upon in Canada as finished would be accepted in Liverpool as finished animals at all. I do not think they can for a moment be compared with the finished animals that the Scotchman turns out.
I am advised that a great many of the Irish feeders do not finish their cattle at all, and their finished cattle are very jnuch better than ours from Western Canada. I am advised that a very large proportion of the Irish feeders ship their cattle to Scotland for the Scotchmen to finish, because the Scotchman makes a specialty of finishing those animals which are sent from different parts of Great Britain. If that be so why not let him have a chance of finishing some of ours. We can turn out very good stock but I do not think we have ever got the habit-not even our best feeders-of finishing our cattle as they are finished there. I say that the Irishman, whom I am advised ships his cattle to Scotland to he finished, is in a very much better position to do that finishing than we are, especially those of us in the western country.
It is not the first time I have listened to lectures from my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) as to how we should farm in the West. I suggest to my hon. friend that it would he better to leave the western farmers to work out their own salvation rather than that advice should come from people who do not know what they are talking about. We out there know very much better how to overcome the difficulties in our way or what should be done to meet them, we are very much better informed about that country than is my hon. friend. With all due deference to him we know some of the difficulties we have had to encounter; and any man who has been identified with
feeding stock in the western country knows there are many difficulties in the way of finishing that stock as it should be finished for the British market. In time we may overcome those difficulties; but the solution will have to he worked out, it cannot he arrived at all at once. The present embargo is a great handicap to us in shipping cattle to Great Britain and so long as it continues in force that will continue to be the case. The western farmers feel very keenly that so long as that embargo remains they will be very seriously handicapped, and I submit that they know a great deal more about the situation there than my hon. friend from Ontario.


Donald Sutherland: You have had it
for twenty-nine years.


Levi Thomson: That is true.


Donald Sutherland: ' I mean the embargo.


Levi Thomson: I thought it was our farming operations you were referring to. The embargo has been in force for some time and it may be in force for some time yet. So long as it is there it will be a barrier-not merely an embargo, but a barrier to our success at stock raising in so far as we depend upon the British market. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I feel that I have no other alternative than to vote against the resolution of my hon. friend. While I shall vote in that way I do not say that I would vote in favour of any resolution presented here asking for a removal of that embargo; that would require separate and very careful consideration. I certainly am opposed to any resolution such as the present one which to my mind is practically a bit of advice offered to the British Parliament that they should keep the embargo on and that we do not want it removed. With that I cannot agree.


John Wesley Edwards: The hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat took, if I may say so, a somewhat peculiar position in the last few sentences which he uttered. He objects to the resolution proposed by the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Smith), on the ground that it is giving advice to the British Government and asking them to retain the embargo. He says, however, in regard to a resolution which would ask for the removal of the embargo, and which would certainly be a greater interference on our part than the present resolution, that he would give such a resolution some con-

sideration; that he would not be prepared to vote against that on the same ground as he would vote against the present one because it would meet his own views-he could not see in the other resolution the interference which he apparently sees in' the resolution now before the House. That, with all due respect to the fact that my hon. friend is a lawyer and supposed to argue questions and come to a right conclusion, strikes me as rather a peculiar attitude.
I would also say a word in regard to the attitude of the hon. member for Maison-neuve (Mr. Lemieux), or, since this is a subject more especially concerning people who live in rural districts, the hon. member for Gaspe. Of course, on industrial questions we will refer to him as representing his other constituency. But on this question the hon. member for Gaspe has assumed a somewhat peculiar position also. I was surprised to hear him taking rather strong exception to some utterances by Lord Beaverbrook, especially because, if I read correctly the newspaper reports of what the noble lord said, I would certainly think that if he had a seat in this House he would vote for the resolution which stands in the name of the hon. member for Gaspe, as I can only infer from his utterances that Lord Beaverbrook is opposed to the embargo against Canadian cattle and wishes to have it removed. However, my hon. friend sees in the remarks, of Lord Beaverbrook a meddling in British affairs. If it is considered perfectly proper for an hon. gentlemen in this House to move a resolution which certainly can only be taken as a piece of gratuitous advice to the British authorities, I would think that a man who has a seat in the British Parliament might at least be allowed to express his opinions on British policy, and that, I believe, is all that Lord Beaverbrook has done.
Now, Sir, the hon. member for Gaspe has said that he does not want to be taken as interfering in British affairs or giving advice to the Old Country as to how they should regulate their policy in regard to the importation of cattle. He has expressed a belief, as have other hon. gentlemen, that this attitude on the part of the British Government in placing an embargo on cattle from Canada and the United States and other countries is not due, so far as Canada is concerned at least, to any belief on their part that our cattle are diseased. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) was very emphatic in expressing that view, in which I

entirely concur. If that is true, if we are convinced that the British people do not entertain the thought that our cattle are diseased, then we must look for another reason for the embargo, and that reason strikes me as being purely and simply an attempt to protect their cattle industry, that is all it amounts to. Then, if my hon. friend from Gaspe does not want to appear as interfering or giving advice to Great Britain in the matter of her embargo policy, why does not his resolution state exactly what he does want? Really what he wants to get from the British Government is a statement, duly signed, sealed and witnessed, I suppose, to the effect that they do not believe our cattle are diseased. If that is the case, then his resolution should state that, and that alone. Great Britain has a right to arrange her fiscal policy to suit herself, just as we have a similar right.
This debate, of course, has given the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) an opportunity to talk free trade again. I was expecting the hon. gentleman would get up, and I thought: What a wonderful opportunity he will have of-if I may use a common expression-lambasting the British Government for its protective policy in this instance. The hon. gentleman, however, had very little to say in condemnation of the British attitude. Still he must get off his free trade speech, and as he did not desire to say very much about the British policy, he took it out on Canada and gave us advice on what we should do in the way of developing more trade between the two countries.


Michael Clark: May I put a
question to my hon. friend just with a view of elucidating this matter fully? Does not his case against Great Britain as to this embargo being a purely protective measure not fall down, somewhat at least, in view of the consideration that Great Britain imports any amount of dead meat without duty?


John Wesley Edwards: I do not think it does, because Great Britain evidently believes that in keeping on this embargo she is protecting her own livestock industry. My hon. friend will not say that that embargo is being continued in order to protect British stock men from diseased cattle? Then what is the object if it is not to protect them in the raising of livestock? Undoubtedly the embargo is purely a protective measure on their part, and I think that every hon. member recognizes it as such. If Great Britain placed a duty of

$100 per head on imported Canadian cattle, no person here would raise any question at all; we would recognize her right to do so. But an import duty of $100 a head would not be any more prohibitive against our cattle than thg present embargo; they would both serve exactly the same purpose, which is absolutely one of protection.
I gathered from the remarks of the hon. member for South Ontario, who is a very experienced stock man and one to whom we always listen with interest and profit, that it would be in the best interests of Canadian livestock men to finish their product here rather than ship it to England partly finished, as they would do if the embargo was taken oif. In that I entirely agree with him. I am not inclined to altogether agree with him that the best place for abattoirs would be in Halifax, because if the argument holds good that in shipping the live animal from Halifax we would be shipping a lot of waste material, it would also apply in shipping stock, we will say, from Ontario to Halifax, and so the abattoirs might be better placed nearer the point where the animals are being finished. I do think, especially in view of action which the United States may take, that the Government would be well advised in establishing abattoirs in various parts of the country in order to encourage those in the livestock industry to finish their animals and ship them in the form of meat rather than on the hoof.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, may I add this? It is unfair to expect our livestock men to compete on even terms with the stock raisers of the Argentine or of the Southern States, for instance, Texas. There again I want to say-and this I pass on for the special benefit of the hon. member for Red Deer-that the Government should, if anything, raise the duty on live animals coming-into this country. It is unfair to ask our farmers and stock raisers with the disadvantages of our climate, to compete on even terms with Southern States like Texas or with South American countries like the Argentine, where they have no winter conditions to contend with. This is something, it seems to me, which even my hon. friend from Red Deer, ardent free trader as he is, might do well to consider when he is preaching his free trade doctrine in this House. - The hon. gentleman loses sight entirely of the climatic conditions we have to contend with when he is talking free trade whether in regard to cattle or anything else. He knows perfectly well that the farmers of this country have thousands of dollars invested in barns and stables to take care of their stock, and that they must be put to very great expense in fitting their cattle for the market. In that respect their competitors in Argentina and Texas have a very great advantage over them. These are things which should be considered in this connection.
Another thing which the Government might well consider-and I advanced this view in the House a year or two ago-is the desirability of giving Canadian flour shipped from Canadian ports to the markets of Europe a preference over wheat in the matter of ocean rates, thus inducing the milling of more wheat in this country and making available to Canadian farmers the by-products of wheat which they must have if they are to compete with those parts of the United States and those other countries which are more fortunate than we are as respects climatic conditions. All these things, it seems to me, are worthy of consideration in connection with this matter. But I most strongly deprecate this House undertaking, in connection with this resolution or with any other resolution, to tell Great Britain what she should do in handling her own affairs. Let Great Britain handle her affairs as she deems best, and we can maintain the right to do the same for ourselves. They have never undertaken to advise us in matters of legislation; very often this House has undertaken to advise Great Britain, a procedure which, I think, is not only undignified, but borders very closely on the impertinent.


John Dowsley Reid: - (Mackenzie):	Mr. Speaker, I wish to make just a few observations on this resolution, which I consider to be a very important one. Should the resolution carry, it will be an admission on our part, as I read it, that our Canadian cattle are diseased. It says:
That, in the opinion of this House, it would not be in the interests of Canada should the Government of Great Britain remove the embargo upon cattle going into the United Kingdom.
It is well known that the reason why our cattle are not admitted free into Great Britain is because of the discovery of disease in them some years ago. It has been suggested that the embargo is a measure of protection on behalf of the British stock raiser. I know for a fact that Scottish stock feeders want to be able to purchase our Canadian stocker:	several of
them have told me that our cattle are thi

best and the healthiest that they can buy. The same applies to the English farmer. But the protection is a protection for Ireland, for the Irish farmer, and, I think, Mr. Speaker, we will all agree that Ireland needs a little protection.
The hon. member for Victoria (Mr. White) has voiced the sentiments of western stock men to the effect that if something is not done to stabilize the stock industry, especially in the West, the stock-raisers will practically have to go out of business. It is all very well for our friends in Ontario, and in the East to say that we should finish the cattle in Canada before we ship them abroad; but that cannot apply to Western Canada. We have unlimited grazing lands in Western Canada that are not occupied. If this embargo was removed and we were able to ship our cattle to the Old Country, the live stock industry in the West would be stimulated. I admit that the day may come when we shall finish our cattle in the West, but in the meantime there must be some disposition of our cattle before they are finished.
Then, I think the Government should make some inquiries with regard to the building of abattoirs. I agree with the member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) that abattoirs should be built as nearly as possible to the districts in which the stock is raised. It is necessary to avoid excessive freight rates and wastage in the live animal, so that the nearer we get the abattoirs to the stock-raising fields, the better.
The hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), in advancing the argument that our stock should be finished at home advocated the use of smaller farms and the employment of more men on the land. I just want to say in passing that if that principle were adapted, the revenue from an income tax point would be considerably decreased. I notice that the farmers of Alberta, which is not a thickly settled province, paid last year by way of income tax over $360,000. In Alberta we have a great many ranchers and a great many stock-raisers, so I think it would be unwise to encourage small holdings in that province. In Saskatchewan the farmers paid $340,000 by way of income tax-I am giving the round figures and speaking partly from memory, so that I am subject to correction. In Saskatchewan there are fewer ranchers than in Alberta. The income tax paid by the farmers of Ontario amounted for the same period to $64,000. I do not

think, therefore, that it would be wise, even for the sake of obtaining the benefit which would result from finishing our live stock on the farms, to encourage small holdings. I rather think we should encourage larger holdings and stock-raising as is the practice on the western prairies. If practicable, we should ask Great Brtiain to remove the embargo, and should the Government consider it advisable to do this, I suggest that they should say to the British Government at the same time: If you will remove the embargo on our Canadian cattle, we will take off all the duties against British manufactured goods.


Mr. W. F. COCKSHUTT (Brantford) :: Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity of speaking on this question a good-many times, and though I cannot profess to be quite up to date on the subject I think I may be justified in placing a few facts before the House in reference to the conditions as they existed a few years ago.
Five years after the embargo was placed upon our Canadian cattle, there was still a strong agitation to have the embargo removed. At that time I asked the Customs Department to furnish me with a statement of the number of cattle shipped during the five years prior to the placing of the embargo and the five years following the placing of the embargo. I am sorry to say that I have not these figures before me, though I kept them for many years; probably they are still among my treasures. But it may be broadly stated that prior to the placing of the embargo an immense export trade in live cattle had been carried on from Ontario to the United Kingdom and the cattle were bringing at that time a very high price. If my memory serves me correctly, the average price obtained for Canadian cattle at the time the embargo went on was about $95 per head. As we were sending hundreds of thousands of cattle into the British market, that meant many millions of dollars for the province of Ontario alone. Immediately after the embargo was imposed, the number of cattle exported diminished very rapidly, and the price decreased just as rapidly as the number of cattle exported diminished, thus showing conclusively, to my mind, that we lost a very valuable market by an act which I always considered to be a great injustice to the Dominion. It is quite true, as the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's. (Mr. Fielding) said, that an effort was made lately to show that the embargo was not imposed on account of disease [DOT] tut the fact

is that the embargo was imposed in the first place on account of disease and no other disease than pleuro-pneumonia. The diseases which the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) mentioned were not in the category at all. While Canadian cattle were free from disease, there was a possibility that United States cattle were not; I believe they were not entirely free, and that, perhaps, there came across our borders into Canada a few cattle that were affected with disease. I believe, if anybody will go to the customs and ask for the figures, he will find that they prove that, after the passing of the embargo, the number of cattle exported fell off very rapidly and the price fell just as rapidly, so that we lost both ways.
The hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Smith) is one of the highest authorities on livestock matters, and I feel like a very humble member beside him in debating any of these questions pertaining to cattle. It is only because, in years gone by, I have made a considerable study of this question that I venture to make these few remarks. Taking it for granted that the best proposition is to send the finished cattle from Canada, that is, that they should be fed on our own grain and absolutely matured in Canada before they go to the British market, I want to point this out-and I do not think it has been mentioned so far in the debate-[DOT] that cattle travelling under sea conditions, herded and fed and watered as they are, are a good deal like men or women making the same voyage; they arrive in a condition, not fit to kill. I think the hon. member will realize the truth of that. I have crossed the Atlantic many times; I know what seasickness means, and I am told that cattle are just as much subject to seasickness as human beings. Therefore, when these cattle arrive at Liverpool and other markets, they are not in shape to kill; they have not been fed or watered or housed properly, and as a result they have lost a lot of flesh and the flesh that remains is not in a good condition. Anyone can understand that when an animal has been affected by seasickness for ten days or two weeks, it is not in a condition to kill, and in justice to the British people, they should not be fed on the flesh of cattle that have been killed in a seasick condition. Yet the regulations say that those animals must be slaughtered within ten days after arrival. The proposition on the face of it is not a good one.
It is said that Lord Beaverbrook is conducting a Canadian campaign, but I am not sure that he has said that it is a Canadian
campaign he is conducting. I am sorry this has become a political issue in the Old Country; I hope it will not become a political issue in Canada, and perhaps the best course for us to pursue at the present time is to say very little about the matter either one way or the other. I have never known my hon. friend (Mr. Smith) to go wrong on agricultural matters; but, perhaps, he is not going to divide the House on this question and I shall not have to oppose him at present. The cattle question in Canada is to my mind one amongst a number of burning questions, and in Ontario with the Minister of Agriculture of that province going overseas in order to push the matter, it has become a more live question than usual. Whether that gentleman has any mandate from Ontario to go and push that question, I am not so clear. I think, perhaps, on the whole, as we have on the Order Paper these two resolutions, pro and con, the better idea would be to withdraw them both and let the debate go for what it is worth. For myself, I believe an injustice is being done to Canada; that it ought to be removed and that we should not be told our cattle are diseased. To the hon. member for South Ontario, I would say that it is not necessary for us to take advantage of the removal of the embargo, if it is not to our interest to do so, but we would have the privilege of taking advantage of it if there is anything to be gained.
I cannot refrain from pointing this out to my good friend the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) because, although he made some remarks on the cattle question, he strayed a little afield, when he said that we could never expect in this country to have the trade that we should have unless we brought back full ships as well as sent out full ships. I think that was the idea the hon. gentleman had. You may build all the ships in the world; but when you bring in more than half the goods that come into Canada, by rail, and not by ships,-and that is a policy which my hon. friend is pushing for all he is worth, namely, to bring in goods from the United States by rail- you will never have full ships crossing the Atlantic. I would support my hon. friend if he said that we should buy more British goods than American; then he would be talking; but, at present, goods are being brought in by a short rail route from the United States, much to the detriment of our railways that need the traffic, as can be seen by looking at the railway Estimates, instead of being brought in by ships to

Halifax, St. John, Quebec, and being loaded on our railways, thus furnishing a trade route throughout the whole country. Out of about i$l,500,000,000 worth of goods that we have brought into Canada, nearly $1,000,000,000 have come from the United States, and, I believe, almost entirely by rail. So I say to the hon. member for Red Deer: You cannot fill ships on that basis The difficulty is not that we are not buying enough goods; we are at the present time buying more than we are selling, but we are buying them in the wrong quarter.


Michael Clark: May I remove
a misapprehension my hon. friend seems to be under? I never had the least idea of taking goods from or bringing goods to the United States in ships. It is the British trade to which I was referring.


William Foster Cockshutt: My hon. friend said
that the reason why Canada did not have sufficient trade was because we were not buying enough, and we were not filling our ships because we did not bring in sufficient across the water. I am pointing out that we are buying too many goods, but in the wrong quarter, the United States, when we should be buying them from the Mother Country. If we did that, we would fill our ships; we would furnish transportation for our railways, and our cattle going to and fro would be filling those ships and the railway cars with the desired freight. I think my hon. friend will see that his policy of buying more goods is not what we need.


Levi Thomson: Would not an increase in the British preference cause us to buy more from Great Britain and less from the United States? That is what my hon. friend had in mind.


William Foster Cockshutt: 
Mr. J. W. KENNEDY (Glengarry and Stormont) :: I just want to say a few words in this debate. While I have the greatest respect for my hon. friend from South Ontario (Mr. Smith), whom I know to be a man who has been interested in the live stock industry for years, and who has done very much to improve the live stock business in the province of Ontario, I must differ from him on the resolution which he has submitted to the House this afternoon. The reason given, and it was given in this debate this afternoon, for the placing of an embargo upon our cattle, was that possibly disease might be brought into the

herds of the Old Land from Canada. I do not think there is any country in the world that has been so free from these diseases as Canada. The disease particularly mentioned in connection with this embargo is pleuro-pneumonia. We are told that there has been no case of pleuropneumonia in this country since 1886, and that the cases at that time were confined to a quarantine station. The disease did not get beyond the bounds of that station, and the animals were cremated, so there was no danger of a spread of infection from that source. It has also been stated that British cattle breeders fear that the foot and mouth disease might be introduced into Great Britain by our cattle, but there has been no outbreak of foot and mouth disease in this country since 1884, and the cases then were confined to a quarantine station; they never got beyond that. Very strict regulations were put in force by the Federal Department of Agriculture when live stock was being shipped from this country to the Old Land. Inspectors were stationed at all shipping points, and all the cattle for export had to undergo a very severe examination. Those regulations are ready to be put into force again should that trade be revived. Just to show that our Federal Department has the situation fully in hand, I would remind the House that in the last outbreak of foot and mouth disease across the line, which affected a great area, 23 states, I think, of the American Union, and cost the Americans hundreds of thousands of dollars, the quarantine regulations put into force by our department at that time prevented the disease spreading to the herds in this country. It was a very severe test that the Federal Department was put to at that time, and the result proves conclusively, I think, that there is no danger of disease from that source, because those regulations are still in force and should our cattle trade with the Old Land be revived the Federal Department could take the same measures to prevent the spread of infection from our herds to the Old Land.
My hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) has given a few figures on the export trade from Canada to Great Britain before the embargo was placed on our live cattle. That trade, of course, fell off, but during the last few years since the United States has been admitting our cattle free, quite a large trade has developed across the line in live cattle. Since 1914 there have been, in round figures,
200,000 cattle per year sent across the line; in some years, a few more, and in others perhaps less. Valuing these at $100 per head, the trade would amount to about $20,000,000 per year, a very valuable trade indeed.
It has been argued in this debate that it would be better for Canada to finish her store cattle at home, to feed them here, and place them on the British market in a finished condition. Canada cannot do that at the present time. On account of our wide areas, our rather extensive pasture areas, our scarcity of labour, Canada can rear and produce far more cattle than she can finish. Our present stage of development is better fitted for rearing and producing a far greater number of cattle than we can finish. On the other hand, the British farmer, who carries on operations on a far more intensive scale than we do, is in a better position to take these cattle and finish them. He will stable them, feed them high, and finish them in a short time, and have a quick turnover. He can finish more than one group in one year, whereas the Canadian farmer would require two, three or four years in order to produce and rear the cattle that he has to sell. There is no question, however, that a great number of cattle are being finished in our country, and placed on the markets of the world in a finished condition, and undoubtedly in the future the number will be larger. But under present conditions, where we have large areas of pasture, and a scarcity of labour, the Canadian farmer can produce and rear far more cattle than he can finish, and it would be of great advantage to him as well as to the British farmer to have the embargo removed, so that he could produce and rear a large number of store cattle, to be shipped ovter to Great Britain and finished there.
I do not at all underestimate the value of the finishing of our cattle here and placing them upon any market in that condition. That, of course, is desirable, and it is an end towards which we are working. But at the present time we have a large surplus of store cattle, and if we cannot get them out of the country we shall suffer a very great loss. I have already spoken in regard to the trade that has developed between Canada and the United' States in this regard. We have heard something in the last few days concerning the Fordney Bill. Now, should this Bill or any other of a similar character be carried into effect and our trade with the



United States be cut off, there would be an immense glut of store cattle on the Canadian market', and if the British embargo were removed we should immediately have an outlet for this produce to take the place of the American market.
There is another phase of this question upon which I should like to touch. I understand, although I am not certain on this point, that the embargo applies not only to our cattle but to our sheep as well. Canada, of course, is not a great sheep-producing country, nor, on the other hand, is she a great mutton-consuming nation, and at certain seasons of the year there is a considerable glut of mutton on the Canadian market. If the embargo were removed an outlet would be provided for our live sheep and it would ensure us against these gluts that occasionally occur in this country.
There is another feature of this question which is sometimes overlooked. The British herds and flocks have been a source from which Canadian breeders have imported a great deal of stock for the improvement of their own cattle and sheep. If the embargo were removed and our live cattle were allowed to enter Great Britain free, there is no doubt whatever that the return trade that would result of pure-bred stock from the Old Land would improve our herds, particularly in regard to bulls, in which respect our herds in this country are lamentably deficient. Just in this connection I may say that since this trade has developed with the United States there have been coming into this country particularly into the Canadian West a considerable number of pure-bred bulls. If the embargo were removed I feel sure that the British breeders would compete and share in that trade, and the result would be a very valuable improvement in the herds and flocks of the livestock men of this country.


Mr. MORPHY:: Do English animals come into Canada free of duty?


John Wilfred Kennedy: I think the pure-bred animals come free of duty. The Old Country has been a very fertile source of purebred stock for Canadian breeders, and there is no question that our herds have been greatly improved by importations from their herds. We must admit that in many cases they are ahead of us in this business, and we should cultivate this return trade to as great an extent as possible. I should be sorry indeed to see the resolution proposed by my hon. friend from

South Ontario (Mr. Smith) carried in this House.


Hon. S. F. TOLMIE (Victoria City, B. C.) :: In rising to say a few words on this resolution I desire at the outset to pay a tribute to the mover for the excellent service he has rendered the livestock interests of Canada during his years of experience as a breeder and importer in the province of Ontario. He is one of our oldest, most respected, and most capable breeders of purebred stock, being known all the way from the Atlantic to the Pacific. He has been not only a successful exhibitor at many of our fairs, but has filled the important position of judge on many an occasion on both sides of the line. However, I feel that on this occasion I cannot quite agree with him on this embargo question. In the first place, when the embargo was imposed, the argument was advanced that Canadian cattle were affected with contagious disease,-at that time pleuropneumonia. The adoption of this resolution might convey the impression that we are perfectly satisfied and have been satisfied for thirty years, with this embargo, whereas, as a matter of fact, ever since the embargo was imposed the Government have from time to time been making regular efforts to have it removed.
The embargo was put on about thirty years ago on the assumption that pleuropneumonia had appeared in a shipment of cattle from Canada to the Old Country. I very well remember the occasion. I was then a student of veterinary science in Toronto and this matter was discussed at college on many occasions, and I remember distinctly that many veterinarians of Great Britain strongly protested against the diagnosis that was made by the official veterinary authorities on that occasion. It is about thirty-four years or more now since we last had a case of pleuro-pneu-monia in Canada, and as the previous speaker informed the House, it occurred in a shipment sent over here. That shipment remained in quarantine for the regular period and the animals were destroyed and the premises disinfected. It is about thirty-six years since there was a case of foot-and-mouth disease in Canada, which occurred in exactly the same way. It also was stopped in quarantine and it got no further. But there is every proof that our cattle are free from disease. As you know, we have the privilege of shipping cattle to Great Britain for salughter at the port of entry, and during the intervening period since the imposition of the

embargo we have slaughtered no fewer than three million head of Canadian cattle on the British side, under British inspection, and not one single case of pleuropneumonia has been discovered.
As I said a moment ago, Mr. speaker, ever since the embargo was imposed our Governments have been making efforts to secure its removal, and in 1917 the then Prime Minister, (Sir Robert Borden) received a distinct promise from the Minister of Agriculture of Great Britain, that the embargo would be removed. Shortly after that two delegates were sent from Canada to Great Britain to instruct the people regarding the health of Canadian cattle and also to represent the unfairness of imposing this embargo on the ground of disease in our cattle. They did this work entirely with the approval of the Minister of Agriculture of Great Britain and clearly through official channels. They interviewed many organizations of livestock breeders, labour organizations, etc., and also took up the matter with the press of the country. They rendered a very excellent service but one that had no effect. It is now rather regrettable that this matter has assumed a political aspect and that certain men are trying to make political capital out of the embargo situation. Lord Lee clearly stated a short time ago that if he undertook to remove the embargo, or had any business with the Government of Canada with reference to the subject, it would be through the proper channel, the Federal Department of Agriculture. It is unfortunate, therefore, that this matter has been taken up in the way that it has by some of the representatives from this side, and also by some of the press, with the result, I think, that the work has been hindered to a very great extent in as much as people have been very much irritated and they have misinterpreted the intentions of those who have been carrying on that campaign.
Now with regard to our markets, is the removal of this embargo going to help the cattle industry of Canada? I may say that at the present time we cannot possibly consume the number of beef cattle produced in this country at home. The result is that we have to look for an export market. We have been shipping these cattle to the United States, but there are rumors of tariff changes over there that will prevent our cattle from going into that market if those changes are approved. I want to say here that on the fourteenth of January I had the pleasure of addressing the American National Live Stock Association
46i
assembled at El Paso, Texas. This Association represents all the range cattle breeders of the United States extending from Texas to California, from California north to Washington, and East as far as the Dakotas. Those men were unanimously in favour of imposing duties on Canadian and Mexican cattle coming into the United States, so that if that market is removed we are going to have a little difficulty- in the beginning at least-in disposing of our surplus products. If we could place those cattle on the British market we could do so to great advantage, and a nice outlet would be provided for our cattle during the period in which we are getting our farmers to become feeders of livestock.
I quite admit that it would be much more beneficial, from an economic standpoint, to finish off the cattle in this country than to ship' over our chilled beef to Great Britain. Let us see for a moment what kind of luck we would have in carrying on work of that kind? I think it was the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) who stated that the Government should have taken up an active policy immediately after the close of the war to get our meat on the British market in competition with the Argentine and Australia. Perhaps you will remember, Mr. Speaker, that at that time, immediately after the conclusion of the war, owing to the lack of shipping, a large number of animals had accumulated in the Argentine and also in Australia; so that at that particular period the Argentine was placing chilled beef on the British market at from eleven to fourteen cents a pound, while the Canadians were asking twenty-five cents for their article. The shipping of chilled beef in competition with the Argentine and Australia would not at the present time, I am afraid, be a very profitable work to undertake. In the first place you will perhaps be astounded, Mr. Speaker, to know that of the million cattle passing annually through our inspection abattoirs less than ten per cent are fitted for export to the British Islands in competition with the beef from the two countries I have mentioned, on account of their small size, their poor quality, and their . lack of finish.
The Government has long recognized that situation and we -are making every effort to induce the farmers to feed and finish their cattle. We have introduced what is known as "A carlot and smaller group policy" at our various fat stock shows. We are giving special prizes for finished animals in carlots and in smaller

groups, and we have had very excellent results. Last year at Brandon Fat Stock Show there were some three hundred cattle on exhibition and a very excellent quality of cattle they were. At some other shows we have also had good results. We also may assist in the establishment of a large fat stock show in the city of Toronto along the lines of the big International Show held in Chicago. The International Show at Chicago brings together cattle breeders and finishers from all over the continent, and from both sides of the International boundary line, so that it has done a very great deal in stimulating the finishing of beef cattle. We hope that the Toronto show when it gets started, probably next winter, will have similar effects in stimulating the finishing of Canadian cattle.
But what are we going to do with our cattle in the meantime? If the United States imposes a duty we cannot ship them there; we must have some other outlet. Let me point out that what is a finished steer on the western ranges of Canada is just about ready to go into the hands of Scotch or English feeders to be finished to suit the taste of the British market. Over there they like very much fatter beef than we use on this side, so that when these cattle have been fed on the ranges of Alberta, or wherever they are fed out in the West, they can then be shipped profitably to Great Britain and sold to the feeders there to finish.
To give you an idea of what cattle are selling for in Great Britain at the present time-and this will perhaps explain the enquiry of some person who wondered how the labour men were interested in the shipment of cattle to Great Britain-let me say that at a recent sale that took place there beef steers brought $358, beef heifers $241, calves $94 and spring dairy cows $448 per head, showing that there would be a most excellent profit in shipping cattle to the Old Country from Canada.


Michael Clark: Will my hon. friend give the comparable prices for Canadian cattle?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Finished beef steers for May delivery are quoted now in Western Canada, I understand, at about ten and a half to eleven cents per pound. Heifers would run about two cents per pound less than that. Fall calves would sell for $25 or $35, and dairy cows would run from $125 to $175 or $200 acording to quality.
There is another explanation for the very great difference in the prices paid for fresh killed beef. The Britisher, the man
min i
who has money, the middle class man, and all others, have a very keen appetite for fresh killed beef, and in that they show rather better taste, I think, than do Canadians. The prices run almost twice as much for fresh killed beef as can be obtained for chilled beef or frozen beef from overseas. So that by sending our beef cattle over there, we would not only be securing a good market for our output, but would also be catering to the tastes of the British consumer.
With regard to the objections raised by the Imperial Government to the shipment of cattle to Britain, let me say that one of their first arguments has been the possibility of getting disease from Canadian cattle. I want to say here as a veterinarian, and one who has kept in close touch with the handling of animal contagious diseases all over the world, that we are in a better shape in Canada to-day than almost any other country in the world. We have a Health of Animals Branch that is made up of men fully qualified for the work, men who not only have to be graduates of a well recognized veterinary institution, but must, in addition to that, pass a special examination before they are permitted to undertake this important work. The proof of what I am saying is the past history of contagious disease in Canada. You will remember that during recent years there have been several very serious outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in the United States-a most infectious disease and very easily carried-and that our veterinarians here were successful in protecting us with a boundary line four thousand miles long, and not one single case of foot-and-mouth disease occurred in the Dominion during that time. This is a clear-cut answer to the claim of the British Government that disease may get in from the United States. In addition to that we have had on the western plains a disease known as dourine amongst horses, a disease that has existed there for a number of years. Not only were we able to clean that up entirely but our pathologist, Dr. Watson, who is at the head of our Pathological staff in the Health of Animals Branch, made a vaccine by which" he was able to easily diagnose the disease and to use the most up-to-date methods in cleaning it up. Then again the record of our Health of Animals Branch recently made in the dipping of 120,000 head of cattle in the province of Alberta for cattle mange to clean up the disease was successful to such an extent that we were able to raise

the blanket quarantine existing over an area of more than 2,600 square miles. I think that was one of the finest performances ever accomplished by any group of veterinarians anywhere in the world.
Now, touching again on this particular point of cattle coming in from the United States. I think there would be no difficulty whatever in guarding British herds against contamination by animals from that country. It would be no trouble to permanently mark those cattle on entry so as to prevent any of them being shipped to England by taking advantage of any arrangement that might be made between Canada and Great Britain for the shipment of our cattle over there.
I feel that perhaps we have no right to make suggestions to Great Britain about her domestic affairs, but, on the other hand, I feel that they should come out in the open and remove the stigma that has been placed on Canadian cattle. This stigma has done us considerable damage. When some of our cattle shippers attempted to send cattle over to the Continent immediately after the war, I understand, one country rejected Canadian cattle because of the fact that they were refused entry into Great Britain ostensibly on account of cattle disease being prevalent in Canada. That is one of the impressions that get abroad as a result of this embargo. Let me point out further that a year and a half ago we were asked to get a special permit from Great Britain to send a shipment of pure bred Holstein cattle to British Holstein breeders, but we were not successful, although only a few years before that a shipment of pure-bred Holsteins brought in by special license from Holland. Yet in Holland foot-and-mouth disease prevails most of the time.
We are importing from Great Britain pure-bred cattle under certain restrictive regulations that have placed us absolutely on the safe side; in other words, we have never had any disease as a result of those importations, although foot-and-mouth disease prevails in England from time to time. As I said a moment ago, we have not had a case here for over thirty-six years. So arguing from these premises, I submit it would be safer for Great Britain to import cattle from this country than it would be for us to import their cattle, although, as I have shown, we have been importing British pure-bred stock for several years so successfully that we have had no disease as a result.
I have been very pleased to notice the great interest that has been taken in this very important matter, and I think that the mover of the resolution has also been gratified, and in taking my seat I would ask him to be kind enough to favourably consider its withdrawal.


Mr. I. E. PEDLOW (South Renfrew) :: Mr. Speaker, after the many very excellent addresses that we have listened to this afternoon on this subject and one which is of so much importance to our stock breeders and cattlemen I think our labours of the afternoon would be abortive if the results were of a negative nature. In my judgment it is the opinion of the majority of those who have taken part in this debate that there is a grievance, and that some appeal should be made with a view to its removal. I am sorry that I was not present until the mover of this resolution (Mr. Smith) had got about half way through his speech, and I must say that, not being an expert in this business such as he is, I raise objection to the request embodied in his resolution with a certain amount of fear and trembling.
It is true, as has been emphasized by hon. members this afternoon, that Great Britain has claimed a reason for an embargo being placed on our cattle. And from my experience and knowledge of the live stock business extending over a period almost as long as that of the previous speaker (Mr. Tolmie), who said this country has been free from both tubercular and foot and mouth disease for over thirty-six years, I think it is really desirable that something should be done to remove the stigma placed on our cattle by Great Britain. Therefore without delaying the House any longer, I would propose that the following amendment be made to the resolution:
That all the words after the word "House" In the resolution be struck out, and the following inserted in lieu thereof: "the Government of Canada should make a strong protest against the reasons assigned by the British Gov-vernment that Canadian cattle are diseased as an excuse for placing an embargo on Canadian live cattle going into the United Kingdom."
I think that this amendment will embody the concensus of opinion as expressed by hon. members this afternoon, and will accomplish something more than would be possible by merely allowing the matter to rest where it is at the moment and withdraw the resolution. I have much pleasure therefore in moving this amendment.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I have only

been able to follow the speech of the mover of the resolution (Mr. Smith) and the speech of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) who sat down a few moments ago. The amendment moved by the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) would seem to imply that such a protest had not been made. Surely he is aware that the history of the last thirty years is the history of protests made not only by the government in office when the embargo was first imposed, but made	almost	yearly sinceby	every	successive government.
The Government that was in office from 1896 to 1911 took, so far as I am aware, precisely the same position as regards this embargo as the Government that is in power to-day. The record, for example, of the 1917 conference on this subject is a record of about as definite and insistent a protest as any Government is capable of making on the very grounds stated in the amendment. I am utterly unable to understand what can be the object of an amendment urging a protest when protest has been the policy of Canada for thirty years and every measure that the successive officers of the Department of Agriculture and the numbers of successive governments could devise has been resorted to to push that process to the effective limit. If any hon. member who thinks oi supporting the amendment can make a suggestion as to what further can be done in the way of pressing or implementing the protest, then an amendment embodying that suggestion will be of value for the consideration of the House. I do not know what more could be done; it is on the ground of the implication embodied in the British policy that our protest has all along been lodged and is lodged to-day. It is on that ground that strong and determined action was taken at the conference to which I refer, and by reason of that ground the British Minister of Agriculture at that time was good enough to say that, at some date which I am sorry he did not specify-* I believe that, in rather indefinite language, he fixed it as the termination of the war-the Government would see that this embargo was removed. The case of Canada to-day rests most strongly upon that promise, and, basing our claim on that promise and on the wrong done to this country by the implication, the Government of to-day is losing no time and sparing no effort to have the embargo removed.
Now, there is a way by which these negotiations or the continuance of this protest

can be carried on. There is a proper way, consistent with the full exercise of authority of the British Government and Parliament within their own domain and consistent with the principle that there shall be no interference from outside with the exerciseing of that authority. I do not think that even for the sake of bringing about the removal of the embargo we would be justified in stepping beyond that method. We have sought through the appropriate channels, through the channels constitutionally established, to bring home to the British Government the wrong done by the implication embodied in the embargo, and nothing has been left undone in that regard. But I do not think it is a proper function of this country or of authorities within this country to launch or initiate among the British people a propaganda against the course taken by the British Government. From that action we have refrained, but we have refrained from nothing in the way of making known the facts as to Canadian cattle in order that the British people may understand that there is no justification in fact for the implication. We have not, however, gone the length of endeavouring to instigate the British people against their own Administration, of endeavouring to launch a propaganda amongst the people against the conduct of their Government. I know that were similar action taken by British authorities against the conduct of this Government, no matter how unpopular the conduct of this Government might be, such action would be resented here. Nor do I understand how we could ever in future resent corresponding action on their part if we made ourselves guilty of initiating the process. I say, therefore, that through the proper channels, and by the proper methods, we will not cease to bring home to the British Government our conviction that if they intend to protect the breeder of stock in England, or protect whatever they like to protect, they should not do so in such a manner as to carry a false implication against the livestock of Canada.
I rose, however, only to suggest to the mover of the amendment-for I had no intimation that any amendment was intended-that it is scarcely fair to ask the House to lodge a protest that is already lodged, and that it is hardly going to put this House in a position of very great dignity as respects the British Government to pass a motion now asking that we do

that which the British Government knows we have never ceased to do for thirty years.


Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East) :: I am sorry that I have not been able to follow the discussion of this resolution, but after hearing my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, I feel impelled to say a word or two as to why I am in favour of the amendment which has been moved by my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow).
The Prime Minister states that this Government has lodged protests on many occasions; that it has kept on lodging protests against that embargo. Well, what is the objection to the Parliament of Canada stating emphatically by way of resolution that we support the Government in the lodging of that protest?


Arthur Meighen: No objection.


Ernest Lapointe: There is no objection, then, to my hon. friend's amendment. If it is the wish of members on both sides of the House, why not incorporate it in the form of resolution as my hon. friend suggests?


Arthur Meighen: The amendment does not say that. If the amendment was drawn that way, there would be no objection to it.


Ernest Lapointe: Well, it might be
worded as I suggest. I must express my concurrence in the view that we should not interfere with the policies of Britain. I admit quite freely that we would resent any such interference on the part of Britain with our own policies. But there is another consideration in regard to this embargo. Britain is at liberty to prohibit the entrance of our cattle into her country, but what I strongly object to is the reason given for that prohibition. If such a reason were given for similar action by any foreign country we would resent it, and we resent 'it when it comes from Britain, and the fact that it is done by Britain is no reason why we should not say so in this Canadian Parliament. Let them place an embargo on our Canadian cattle if they like, but we resent the reasons they are giving. Our cattle are not diseased, and it is a slander against one of the main articles of Canadian production to assign that reason for any embargo.
Mr. PETER ' McGIBBON (Muskoka) (rising).


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I would just like to reply briefly to-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The hon.
gentleman (Mr. Pedlow) would certainly be out of order in replying to the remarks of the Prime Minister unless he did so with the unanimous consent of the House. The hon. member who moves a substantive motion has the right to reply, but the amendment is not a substantive motion; therefore, the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) has not that right unless it is given to him by unanimous consent of the House. Do I understand that the hon. member from Muskoka desires to say a word?


Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to support the view expressed here this afternoon, that Canada, who guards so jealously her own rights and privileges, should refrain from interfering with similar rights and privileges enjoyed by the Mother Country. I recognize that there has been a reflection upon Canada in the charge that her cattle have been diseased.
When the late Sir Charles Tupper was acting as High Commissioner in England, this question first came up. He engaged some of the best veterinary surgeons in England, and on several occasions he had Canadian cattle slaughtered when they arrived in that country and their lungs and other organs examined for tuberculosis. On every occasion the report was that Canadian cattle were perfectly free from the disease with which they had been credited. From that time on I believe every Government in this country has been bringing to the attention of the authorities in England the falseness of that accusation levied against Canadian stock breeders. I would, however, be very sorry if this Parliament went on record as in any way seeking to interfere with the rights and liberties of the Mother Country. We have not only jealously guarded our national status but we have exalted it to such a degree that not long ago Right Hon. Bonar Law announced in the House of Commons that if Canada wished complete independence, there would be no opposition from the Mother Country. How can we, in the face of such statements, interfere with what is a domestic right of the British authorities? I hope the implication that has been levied againsf the stock breeders and the cattle of this country can be removed, but I shall be very sorry to see this Government in order to gain that end go out of its

way to interfere with the affairs of the Mother Country. Canada has placed her case before the British authorities, and having done that she should rest her energies at that point. Further than that, we have no right to go, and I cerainly think we should not go.


Mr. EDMUND BRISTOL (Centre Toronto) :: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) has stated that the British authorities no longer take the view that Canadian cattle are diseased, but they say that it is possible for diseased cattle to come from the United States into Canada and in that way get to England. If that be the case, if the British authorities no longer take the position that this embargo was imposed on Canadian cattle because of their being diseased, it seems we are hammering a straw man very hard. But there is one ground on which I think both these resolutions should be withdrawn, and that is, that it is quite evident from the newspapers to-day that the question of embargo or no embargo is an active political question before the British electorate. It certainly has not been stated in the press that one side are saying that Canadian cattle are diseased and the other side saying that they are not diseased. The question that was raised for the British electorate to decide was this: Do you want an embargo or not? If you have no embargo, you are going to have cheaper food in Great Britain. They are not saying: you are going to have diseased cattle. The opposition to that, whatever it was, is not stated, and it is immaterial so long as the other side do not take and have not taken the position that the embargo is imposed because Canadian cattle are diseased. Therefore, there is before the British electorate to-day the issue of cheap food; it is an active political question, and it is not in the interest of the people of Canada or the Canadian Parliament to express any further opinion on this question at this time by a resolution of this House. Let the British people fight out their domestic questions as they like. The British authorities are not slandering us before the people of Great Britain today; we should let them follow their own course in their political matters, and let us attend to a few things we have to do here ourselves.


Michael Clark: I think I am in order in speaking to the amendment, and I should like to make a suggestion to the hon. member for South Renfrew

(Mr. Pedlow). I quite agree Hvith the attitude of my hon. friend (Mr. Bristol), and I think the position, which I took myself and which I understood him to support on general grounds, apart, of course, from my incursion into fiscal matters, gained a very strong reinforcement from his drawing attention to the fact that these matters are exciting the attention of the people of Great Britain politically.
I rose, however, for the jpurpose of stating clearly what I understand to be-Britain's position in this matter. I think it is well our people should understand it without any possibility of doubt as to the actual facts of the case. If I am wrong, I am sure the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) will correct me, or my hon. friend to whose speech we all listened with the greatest possible interest. Some talk as if Great Britain were doing something specially directed against Canada on this question. The Minister of Agriculture can tell the House far better than I can of the immense value of the British herds of cattle, and how owners of British herds from time to time sell cattle at almost fabulous prices. Having regard to the value of those cattle, the British Government have for years taken the position that they will play doubly safe in regard to the health of their cattle within their shores. That is the position they took to begin with, and they take it still. If they admit, what they have to admit, that we have a very fine bill of health amongst our stock in Canada, they still have a fear about diseased cattle coming in from the United States. They play safe within their borders in regard to the health of their extremely valuable cattle, and they put on this embargo, not specially against Canada, but, as I understand the matter, against all countries in the world. Do they take live cattle in from any country except to kill them at the port of debarkation?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Not without a special license.


Michael Clark: Not without a license do they take them from anywhere. I think it is important, with a view towards the best possible relationships and understanding between the Canadian and the British people, that the fact should be known, that this is not a special act against Canada; that it is an act that is undertaken along the line of extreme caution in the preservation of the health of their herds. In view of that fact, I very much doubt the wis-

dom of successive Governments in doing what the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) said they are doing, and that is how I view the question. He has said, as I have said before him, that in Canada we should resent very quickly and ferociously any interference with our affairs. There is no text upon which I have heard so many sermons preached in this House as that of Canadian autonomy, and this question is one of British autonomy. On that ground I would appeal to the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Pedlow) to think carefully before he presses his amendment, and I appeal to him specially on another ground. We are told that all Governments in Canada have taken a line of action which the Prime Minister tells us this Government is taking. I am sure, if there is anything that would infuse a doubt into the mind of the hon. member for Renfrew South about the wisdom of this course of protest, it would be that it is being undertaken by the present Government. I should like him to think twice before he undertakes to press an amendment before this House to put himself in wrong with the people in specially reinforcing an action of the Government against which he so cheerfully voted a want of all confidence the other day.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Speaker, I would very
gladly vote for the amendment of the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow), if it were founded on fact, but I think he is mistaken. He proposes to say that the Government should make a strong protest against the reason that Canadian cattle are diseased being assigned by the government of Great Britain as an excuse for placing the embargo. I do not think the British Government do assign that as a reason. They may have done so in years gone by; I am not going to dispute that, but in all recent discussion of the matter to which I have had my attention drawn, no such reason has been assigned. Quite the contrary. They admit that Canadian cattle are not diseased, and the whole argument now is that unless they have the embargo American cattle may enter Great Britain through Canada. I do not argue whether that is right or wrong, but that is their ground, and if they allege that as a ground we ought not to put on record something else. I would call the attention of my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) to that. I think his resolution states as a fact that which we have no evidence of. I
do not think it is a fact. I do not believe he could quote from any recent utterance of the President of the Board of Agriculture or of any other British minister in the recent discussion in the Dudley election, for example, which would warrant the statement that the British Government has used as an excuse the allegation that our cattle are diseased; and if that is not founded in fact, why should we vote for it here?


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Is there any official information on record either here or in the Old Country setting forth the facts that the hon. member is now trying to illustrate?


William Stevens Fielding: Would it not be in
order for me to ask him if there is anything on record for what he says? We are not bound to prove a negative.


Mr. JACQUES BUREAU:: It is common talk on the street and in the press, that disease is the reason for the embargo.


William Stevens Fielding: 
Jacques Bureau: Mr. Speaker, I do not
require such written documents as evidence as some hon. members seem to require. Mr. Bennett, a former member of this House, in his speech before all the Press Delegates in Calgary, gave as a reason why Canadian cattle were prohibited from entering Great Britain-and he called it a slander on the cattle of Canada; I do not know whether he said that the British Government gave this as a reason-that it was on account of disease. That is sufficient evidence for me.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon.
gentleman will look at the record of the 1907 conference he will see that the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) is right. The British Government do not assign disease as a reason. They have abandoned that, but the implication is there because of the cause for which the embargo was originally imposed.


Jacques Bureau: Yes, it is there. They
have sent abroad the statement that they were refusing our cattle because they were diseased, and here we have the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) who tells us that that statement is not true. It is a slander on our cattle, and I think we should take some action to show that we resent it. If the embargo is not being maintained for the reason that was assigned in the first place, let the British government come out and say so.


Arthur Meighen: They have done so.


Jacques Bureau: They have?


Arthur Meighen: I think so.


Jacques Bureau: They should do so. If
it was any other country we would protest. I do not think we should allow this stigma to rest on our cattle. It is not fair that one of our staple exports should be allowed to rest under the imputation of being diseased. The impression still prevails; it is common talk in the street, and is discussed in the press. When you travel on the railway trains you will hear everybody asking why the embargo on Canadian cattle is maintained, and the reason given is that the cattle are not fit to be consumed by English people or anybody else. I say that we should take steps to remove this stigma on our cattle, and if this is the best means, I am going to vote for the amendment, I think some of our friends are a little bit too ticklish.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jacques Bureau: Do not laugh. Some of the hon. gentlemen who have spoken would have called the hon. member for South Renfrew disloyal-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Jacques Bureau: Yes, yes. I have been
through the mill, boys, and I know. We are here to transact business, and I am going to vote in favour of a resolution that will have the effect of making the British Government dispel the idea that our cattle are diseased. They have created that impression, and I think it is only right that

we should say we do not like it, and feel that they should dispel it.


Mr. KEEFER (Port Arthur and Ken-ora) :: I would suggest, in view of the
statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) and of/ the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, (Mr. Fielding) and as it is now ten minutes to six o'clock, that it would be well to let this resolution stand until it can be licked into such shape that everybody could vote for it. So far as I can understand, there appears to be a great difference of opinion about nothing. We do not want to make ourselves ridiculous unnecessarily. I do not claim to know very much about the subject, but I have read in the papers reports of meetings where British ministers have stated that there was no disease among our cattle in Canada, and that they were not afraid of disease being carried to the English herds. I think we should let the resolution stand in the meantime.


Mr. J. A. ROBB (Chateauguay-Hunting-don) :: In the debate it has been generally
admitted that the herds of Canada are practically free from disease. My hon. friend from Red Deer, when speaking of the splendid reputation for health that British cattle enjoy, apparently forgot that frequently throughout the British Isles there is an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease.


Michael Clark: I must correct my hon. friend as to a matter of fact. I said nothing whatever about disease among British cattle; I spoke of their immense money value.


James Alexander Robb: In that regard there is
no difference between their herds and our herds, which are also of immense money value. The people of Great Britain by implication say that our Canadian cattle are diseased. Now it would be just as logical for us in Canada to say that we would not admit British cattle because frequently there are outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in the herds of Great Britain and their cattle are subject to tubercular trouble. It is a matter of record that any herds coming from the British Isles are quarantined. Sometimes the cattle are returned, and sometimes they are allowed to come in and spread this disease. I think that we in this Parliament, representing the people of Canada, would be just as well justified in putting on an embargo against British cattle on those grounds, as the British Government is justified in maintaining an embargo against our cattle

because sometimes there is disease among our herds. I agree with those who have advanced the argument that we should say to Great Britain: Very well, if you wish to keep our cattle out, you can put on a tariff; but remove this stigma from our herds.


Mr. MICHAEL STEELE (South Perth):: I think we have all listened with very great interest to the debate that has taken place this afternoon, especially as it is a question that is affecting the farmers throughout Ontario to a considerable degree at the present time; not that the farmers themselves perhaps are so deeply interested in it, but the question has been raised in the province of Ontario by the Minister of Agriculture for the province, for reasons which he can perhaps better explain than I can. However, the statement of the mover of the original resolution this afternoon was one worthy of the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Smith), and one which clearly convinces us still further that he is eminently fitted for the important positions which he has held for many years in the livestock organizations of this province. The reply of the hon. minister was, I am sure, one that appealed to us all as a most businesslike statement.
I do not think I have ever seen any statement on the question which appealed to me more than that made by the minister this afternoon, which put some phases of the matter in a way that must appeal to us very forcibly. The amendment which has been proposed by the hon. member for Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) is two-fold, and with both phases of it I heartily agree. One aspect of that amendment is its approval of the course of this Government. The hon. member moves that a protest be entered against the action of the British Government, and this is a policy which has been followed by this Government ever since it came into power, and, in fact, by every Government, I think, which has been in power in Canada since the embargo was imposed. The amendment is therefore, an approval not only of the Government that holds the reins of power to-day, but also of previous Governments. But I also interpret it as a disapproval of the policy which has been adopted by the Minister of Agriculture of Ontario. The amendment to the resolution says that this Parliament, and the Canadian people represented by this Parliament, should make a protest against the attitude of the Minister of Agriculture of Ontario. That minister says:	"I am going
over to create an agitation in Britain among the people which will be so strong that it will compel the British Government to remove the embargo." Some of his colleagues assert that the embargo is going to be removed as a result of his visit to England; and, further than that, they say that if it is removed he is going to receive all the credit therefor. Leaving that aside for the moment, let us consider what the likely results will be of the action of the Minister of Agriculture of Ontario in going to Britain at this time and taking part in the by-elections there, where this question is being discussed by the people. I think that instead of assisting the farmers of Canada in securing the removal of the embargo, his action will embitter the British people and create a feeling of resentment among them which will not easily subside; and instead of aiding the cause which he professes to have at heart, which this Parliament is anxious to aid, and which the Government has been endeavouring to bring to a successful issue, he is going to create new difficulties for the Government, which will probably have the effect of retarding the removal * of the embargo. It being six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
At six o'clock the House adjourned without question being put pursuant to rule.
Thursday, March 10, 1921